Sacramento City Council
December 2, 2025

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 38
April 2003
Habitat Associations/Requirements
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 landforms (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).

Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
There are 154 reported occurrences of vernal pool tadpole shrimp in California, one of which is considered extirpated (NDDB 2001). Of the total number of occurrences in California, a total of 54 extant occurrences are reported from Sacramento County, and 4 from Sutter County. There are no reported occurrences within the NBHCP Plan Area (NDDB 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 Road and Howsley Road. Suitable tadpole shrimp habitat occurs along the eastern edge of the Plan Area.

Midvalley Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis n.sp.) 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 and an emergency petition for listing by USFWS is under review. The midvalley fairy shrimp is similar in morphology to the vernal pool fairy shrimp (Helm pers.comm.) and is also a freshwater crustacean belonging to the order of fairy shrimp (Anostraca). Like all other fairy shrimp, the males of midvalley fairy shrimp have enlarge second antennae used for clasping the female during mating.

Distribution
This species has been found in scattered localities in the middle portion of the Central Valley from Sacramento County to Fresno County (Helm 1998). Based on the species’ limited distribution and sparse population size, it is likely to become a candidate for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 39
April 2003
Habitat Associations/Requirements
This species occurs in grassland pools and intermound pools within mound-intermound topography.

This species has been found inhabiting the most ephemeral of seasonal wetland types, presumably due to its ability of rapid maturity (Helm 1998). This species appears to be a vernal pool obligate species, as it was observed to occur in vernal pools 93% of the time, and in vernal swales only 7% of the time (Helm 1998). This species is associated with the smallest (less than 202 meters square) and most ephemeral (average ponding depths of 10 centimeters) vernal pools (Helm 1998).

Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
There are 14 known occurrences of midvalley fairy shrimp reported in California, all of which are considered extant. Of these occurrences, one is reported from Sacramento County, and no midvalley fairy shrimp are reported from Sutter County (NDDB 2001). No occurrences of midvalley fairy shrimp are reported from the NBHCP Plan Area, however, suitable seasonal wetland and vernal pool habitat occurs along the extreme eastern edge of the Plan Area.
b. Plants
Delta Tule Pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii)
The delta tule pea is considered rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere (List 1B) by the California Native Plant Society (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), and is a federal Species of Concern (former federal candidate for listing). Delta tule pea is a biennial to perennial herbaceous species. Like other members of the pea family (Fabaceae), it has a largish brightly colored pink to lavender flower with a distinctive banner and keel. The species, like other peas has grasping tendrils and a climbing habitat, and can be seen climbing over the tops of tules, through riparian vegetation, and even onto grasses and shrubs in roadside ditches.

Distribution
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.

Unlike the related wild sweet pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. californica), delta tule pea is found at elevations below 98.4 feet (30 m).

Habitat Associations/Requirements
The species is 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. Associated species include tule (Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and rushes (Juncus spp.).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 40
April 2003
Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
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 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). Currently, there are 115 known occurrences of Delta tule pea in California, 14 of which are reported from Sacramento County, and none are reported from Sutter County (NDDB 2001). All of the reported occurrences are considered extant. No occurrences of this species are known from the NBHCP area (NDDB 2001). The nearest reported occurrence are in the Walnut Grove area. Potential habitat occurs where riparian vegetation or emergent marsh vegetation exists in sloughs and marshes.

Sanford's Arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii)
Sanford's arrowhead is considered a Species of Concern by USFWS and rare and endangered (List lB) by the California Native Plant Society (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Sanford's arrowhead is an aquatic perennial that is a member of the water-plantain family (Alismitaceae), and occurs under shallow- water conditions in freshwater marshes. Its leaves are long, linear, and three-angled or narrowly ovate. The inflorescence is generally borne on an emergent peduncle, and it displays three-petaled unisexual flowers at the nodes. The female flowers are borne at the lowest node and the male flowers occur at the higher nodes. The flowering period for Sanford's arrowhead is generally from May through August.

Distribution
Sanford's arrowhead is known primarily from the Central Valley, but has been found below 2,000 feet (609.8 m) elevation (Hickman 1993) in Butte, Del Norte, Fresno, Kern, Merced, Marin, Sacramento, Shasta, San Joaquin, and Tehama Counties. Although the species is distributed widely in California, it is uncommon. Historically, Sanford's arrowhead was also found in Orange and Ventura Counties, is now considered extirpated from these areas.

Habitat Associations/Requirements
Sanford's arrowhead is found in ponds, ditches, vernal pools, sloughs, and other slow-moving waterways. It is commonly associated with yellow water primrose (Ludwigia repens), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), water plantain (Alisma plantago-aquatica), and cattails (Typha ssp.) (NDDB 2000).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 41
April 2003
Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
There are 65 known occurrences of Sanford’s arrowhead in California, one of which is presumed extirpated (NDDB 2001). Of these known occurrences, 30 extant occurrences are reported from Sacramento County and none are reported from Sutter County. No occurrences of this species are known from the NBHCP Plan Area (NDDB 2001). In Sacramento County, several occurrences are reported along the American River Parkway along small oxbows and sloughs (CDFG, 2001). Sanford’s arrowhead is an endemic species, but is considered by CNPS to be threatened by agricultural practices, water diversions and erosion (Skinner and Pavlik, 1994). The nearest reported occurrence is located along a slough connected to the American River, approximately 1.5 miles south of the study area. Potential habitat occurs where riparian vegetation or emergent marsh vegetation exists in sloughs, marshes, and unmaintained agricultural canals.

Boggs Lake Hedge-Hyssop (Gratiaola heterosepala)
The Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop is a State listed endangered species. Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala) is a small, semi-aquatic, herbaceous annual. It is mostly glabrous (smooth) and a member of the figwort family (Scophulareaceae). The stems are erect and 1-5 inches (2.5-12.7 cm) long. The leaves are opposite and entire. The basal leaves are 0.2-1.0 inch (0.5-2.5 cm) long, lanceolate, and slightly clasp the stem. The upper leaves are blunt or notched at the tip and are shorter and wider at the tip than at the base. The inflorescences are open and borne on stout stalks. The flowers are tubular and have five petals. The upper two petals are yellow and fused nearly to the tips. The lower three petals are white and separate. The flowering period for Boggs Lake hedge hyssop is generally from April through June.

Distribution
Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop is found in the following counties in California: Modoc, Lassen, Shasta, Tehama, Lake, Solano, Placer, Sacramento, Madera, and Fresno (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop is found in five widely disjunct areas in California: Boggs Lake in Lake County, Rio Linda and Elk Grove in Sacramento County and near Roseville in Placer County, Big Table Mountain in Fresno County, Kennedy Table in Madera County, and near the Pit River in Shasta County (NDDB 2000). It has also been reported at one site in Lake County, Oregon (Skinner and Pavlik 1994).

Habitat Associations/Requirements
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. May Consulting Services’ file data indicate that Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop is 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, the species is NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 42
April 2003
found in close proximity to foothill woodland species, such as black oak (Quercus kelloggii) and foothill pine (Pinus sambiana), and northern juniper woodland species, respectively.

Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
Currently, there are 86 known occurrences of Boggs lake hedge-hyssop in California, one of which is presumed extirpated (NDDB 2001). Of the 85 extant occurrences, 10 are known from Sacramento County, and no occurrences known from Sutter County. There are no known occurrences of this species in the NBHCP area (NDDB 2001) although limited potentially suitable vernal pool habitat occurs along the far eastern boundary of the project area north of Del Paso Road. The closest known occurrences are from Rio Linda, approximately 2 miles east of the Plan Area.

Sacramento Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia viscida)
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 California Native Plant Society (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Sacramento orcutt grass (Orcuttia viscida) is a gray-green annual grass species (Family: Poaceae) approximately 3 to 5 inches in height with one to several stems arising from the plant’s base. The inflorescence is distinctively more densely packed than other species in the genus Orcuttia. As with other orcutt grasses, Sacramento orcutt grass is covered with a sticky, viscid, and aromatic exudate when mature. The flowering period for this species is from May to July.

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

Habitat Associations/Requirements
Sacramento orcutt grass 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 pre-historic 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).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 43
April 2003
Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
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 (NDDB 2001). There are no records of Sacramento orcutt grass in Sutter County, and no known occurrences of this species in the NBHCP area (NDDB 2001). The closest known occurrences are reported in the vicinity of Kiefer Road in eastern Sacramento County, approximately 8 miles southeast of the Plan Area. Limited potential habitat occurs in the vernal pools along the eastern edge of the Plan Area.

Slender Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia tenuis)
Slender orcutt grass is listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act and Endangered under the state Endangered Species Act, and is considered rare and endangered (List 1B) by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Slender orcutt grass is a gray- green annual grass species (Family: Poaceae) approximately 3 to 5 inches in height. The stems of the species are slender, often branching from the upper nodes. The inflorescence is less densely packed than other species in the genus Orcuttia, but individual spikelets within the inflorescence are larger. As with other orcutt grasses, slender orcutt grass is covered with a sticky, viscid, and aromatic exudate when mature. The flowering period for this species is from May to July.

Distribution
Slender orcutt grass is currently recorded at 74 locations in Lake, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Siskiyou and Tehama Counties (NDDB, 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 (NDDB, 2001). The closest known occurrences are in eastern Sacramento County, between Kiefer Road and Rancho Seco.

Habitat Associations/Requirements
Slender orcutt grass 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 pre-historic rivers and creeks. Associated species include vernal pool endemic plants such as wire rush (Eleocharis macrostachya), rayless lasthenia ( Lasthenia glaberrima), and coyote thistle (Eryngium vaseyi).

Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
Slender orcutt grass is currently reported from 74 occurrences in California, of which 4 occurrences are reported extirpated, and 3 other occurrences were not relocated at a previously reported location (NDDB 2001). Of the 70 extant occurrences, two are reported from Sacramento County, and NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 44
April 2003
no occurrences are reported from Sutter County. There are no known occurrences of this species in the NBHCP area (NDDB 2001). The closest known occurrences are in eastern Sacramento County between Kiefer Road and Rancho Seco. In general, vernal pools in Natomas Basin lack that particular high terrace landforms that are associated with the species, therefore, potential for occurrence within the Plan Area is considered low.

Colusa Grass (Neostapfia colusana)
Colusa grass is both a federally and state listed Endangered species. It is also considered rare and endangered (List lB) by the California Native Plant Society (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). The Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana) is a low (2 to 3-inch or 7.6-to 30.5-cm) tufted annual. Typically, it has several stems that are decumbent (arching) at the base. The upper stem is erect and terminates in a dense cylinder inflorescence. The inflorescences have sheathing leaves that make them superficially resemble ears of corn and individual florets that are broadly fan-shaped. At maturity, Colusa grass, like the orcutt grasses, is covered with a sticky brownish exudate. The flowering period for Colusa grass is generally from May through July.

Distribution
Currently, Colusa grass is found in Merced, Solano, and Stanislaus Counties below 700 feet (213.4 m) elevation. It has been extirpated from Colusa County where it was originally discovered (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). The species' historical range was previously not much larger than is its current range.

However, populations of Colusa grass were much more abundant historically than they are currently.

Habitat Associations/Requirements
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). It usually occurs in the deepest portions of the pools (May Consulting Services file information). 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 (Orcuttia sp.)(Stone et al., 1988).

Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
There are currently 59 known occurrences of Colusa grass in California. Of these 59 occurrences, 48 are presumed extant, 7 are considered extirpated, and an additional 4 occurrences have not been relocated at a previously reported location. Of the 48 extant occurrences, none are reported from Sacramento and Sutter Counties. There are no known occurrences of this species in the NBHCP area (NDDB 2001). Limited potential habitat occurs in the vernal pools along the eastern edge of the Plan Area.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 45
April 2003
Legenere (Legenere limosa).

Legenere is considered a Species of Concern by USFWS and rare and endangered (List 1B) by the California Native Plant Society (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Legenere ( Legenere limosa) is an inconspicuous annual that is a member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae). It is generally 4-6 inches (10.2-15.2 cm) tall but can attain heights of up to 12 inches (30.5 cm). It has erect lateral branches that are stiff and sometimes fleshy. The leaves are sessile, narrowly triangular entire, and early deciduous. The minute flowers are white and are absent on lower portions of the stem. The flowering period for legenere is generally from April through June.

Distribution
Legenere is found below 500 feet (152.4 m) elevation (Hickman 1993) in Lake, Napa, Placer, Sacramento, San Mateo, Solano, and Tehama Counties (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Historically, it was also found in Sonoma and Stanislaus Counties but is now considered extirpated from these areas (Skinner and Pavlik 1994).

Habitat Associations/Requirements
Legenere is found along lakeshores and in vernal pools, marshes, and other seasonally inundated habitats. May Consulting Services’ file data indicate that legenere is commonly associated with stipitate popcornflower, common spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), rayless goldfields (Lasthenia glaberrima), and coyote thistle.

Numbers, Distribution, and Ecology in the NBHCP Area
Currently, there are 49 known occurrences of legenere in California. Of these known occurrences, 6 have been extirpated and one occurrence has not been relocated at a previously known location. Of the 42 extant occurrences, 18 are reported from Sacramento County, and none are reported from Sutter County. There are no reported occurrences in the NBHCP area, although potentially suitable vernal pool habitat occurs along the far eastern boundary of the project area north of Del Paso Road.

D. SPECIES WHICH MAY OCCUR IN THE NBHCP AREA
Table II-4 provides a list of vertebrate wildlife species which may occur in specific habitat types in the Permit Areas. This information is provided for reference purposes only. These species are not considered Covered Species in this NBHCP or under the incidental take permits unless they are listed in Table I-1 of this NBHCP.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 46
April 2003
TABLE II - 4

VERTEBRATE WILDLIFE WHICH MAY OCCUR

IN THE NATOMAS AREA BY HABITAT TYPE
OPEN WATER (including flooded rice fields)

MAMMALS
Muskrat Beaver River Otter
BIRDS
Pied-billed Grebe Bald Eagle Double-crested Cormorant
Canada Goose Mallard Pintail
Common Goldeneye American Coot Ruddy Duck
Wood Duck Forster's Tern California Gull
Whistling Swan Snow Goose Ross' Goose
Cinnamon Teal American Wigeon Kingfisher

REPTILES/AMPHIBIANS
Giant garter snake Common garter snake Bullfrog
Western Pond turtle

FRESHWATER MARSH & MARGINS OF OPEN WATER

MAMMALS
Muskrat Beaver River otter
Harvest mouse Shrews Long-tailed weasel
Skunk Ringtail Various bats (forage over marshes)
BIRDS
Great Blue Heron Yellowthroat Green Heron
Marsh Wren Black-crowned Night Heron Killdeer
Belted Kingfisher Black Phoebe Black Tern
Yellow-headed Blackbird Tricolored Blackbird Red-winged Blackbird Bewick's Wren Song Sparrow American Bittern
Purple Gallinule Great Egret Snowy Egret
Cattle Egret American Avocet Sora
Long-billed Curlew Yellowlegs Willet
Black-necked Stilt Northern Harrier

REPTILES/AMPHIBIANS
Giant garter snake Common garter snake Gopher snake
Bullfrog Pacific tree frog Western toad

RIPARIAN SCRUB-SHRUB

MAMMALS
Opossum Shrews Beaver
Long-tailed weasel Skunk Pocket gopher
Harvest mouse Cottontail California vole
NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 47
April 2003
Deer mouse Black-tailed deer Bats
River otter Raccoon
BIRDS
Great Blue Heron Egret Green Heron
Wood Duck White-tailed Kite Rufous-sided Towhee
Screech Owl Tree Swallow Black Phoebe
Bewick's Wren Yellowthroat Brown Towhee
Scrub Jay Downy Woodpecker Barn Owl
White-crowned Sparrow Ringtail

REPTILES/AMPHIBIANS
Common garter snake Racer Gopher snake
Common king snake Alligator lizard Pacific tree frog
Bullfrog

VALLEY RIPARIAN FOREST

MAMMALS
Opossum Shrews (several species) Mole
Coyote Gray fox Gray squirrel
Pocket gopher Wood rat California ground squirrel
Cottontail Black-tailed deer Beaver
Long-tailed weasel Harvest mouse Deer mouse
Ring-tailed cat
BIRDS
Screech Owl Great-horned Owl Anna's Hummingbird
Flicker Scrub Jay Tree Swallow
House Wren Violet-green Swallow Swainson's Hawk
Crow Red-shouldered Hawk Great blue Heron
Wood Duck Turkey Vulture White-tailed Kite
American Kestrel Red-tailed Hawk Bewick's Wren
Vireos (several species) Warblers (several species) Black-headed Grosbeak Rufous-sided Towhee Brown Towhee Finches (several species) Fox Sparrow Titmouse Western Tanager
Western Bluebird Golden-crowned Sparrow Woodpecker (several species) Robin Northern Oriole

REPTILES/AMPHIBIANS
Common garter snake Southern Alligator lizard Western fence lizard Pacific tree frog Ring-necked snake Gopher snake

VALLEY OAK WOODLAND

MAMMALS
Opossum Shrew (several species) Mole
Raccoon Long-tailed weasel Skunk
Gray fox Coyote Graysquirrel
California ground squirrel Pocket gopher Deer mouse
Black-tailed deer
NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 48
April 2003
BIRDS
American Kestrel Turkey Vulture White-tailed Kite
Rough-legged Hawk Swainson's Hawk Mourning Dove
Great horned Owl Barn Owl Screech Owl
Anna's Hummingbird Woodpecker (several species) Ash-throated Flycatcher Kingbird Scrub Jay Finches (several species)
Warblers (several species) Western Bluebird Western Tanager Crow Raven Woodpecker (several species)
Robin Meadowlark Northern Oriole
Sharp-shinned Hawk Yellow-billed Magpie Lark Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow

REPTILES/AMPHIBIANS
Western fence lizard Gilbert skink Alligator lizard
King snake Gopher snake Western rattlesnake
Western toad Pacific tree frog CA slender salamander
Ring-necked snake Racer Common garter snake

GRASSLAND/SAVANNA

MAMMALS
Opossum Mole Skunk
Gray fox Coyote Bats (several species)
California ground squirrel Pocket gopher Harvest mouse
Deer mouse California vole Black-tailed hare
Black-tailed deer
BIRDS
Turkey Vulture American Kestrel White-tailed Kite
Red-tailed Hawk Swainson's Hawk Golden Eagle
Short-eared Owl Western Bluebird Loggerhead Shrike
Yellow-billed Magpie Crow Great horned Owl
Raven Kingbird Northern Oriole
Finches (several species) Horned Lark Lark Sparrow
Golden-crowned Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow Brewer's Blackbird Barn Owl

REPTILES/AMPHIBIANS
Horned lizard Western fence lizard Common king snake
Gopher snake Racer Western toad
Alligator lizard Common garter snake Gilbert skink

GRASSLAND, LEVEE SIDES AND OLD FIELD

MAMMALS
Opossum Mole Skunk
Gray fox Coyote Bats (several species)
California ground squirrel Pocket gopher Harvest mouse
Deer mouse California vole Black-tailed hare
Black-tailed deer
NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATA II - 49
April 2003
BIRDS
Turkey Vulture American Kestrel Red-tailed Hawk
Swainson's Hawk Golden Eagle Mourning Dove Acorn
Woodpecker Western Bluebird White-tailed Kite
Loggerhead Shrike Yellow-billed Magpie Crow
Raven Kingbird Northern Oriole
Finches (several species) Horned Lark Lark Sparrow
White-crowned Sparrow Golden-crowned Sparrow Brewer's Blackbird Short-eared Owl Great horned Owl
Northern Harrier

REPTILES/AMPHIBIANS
Horned lizard Western fence lizard Common king snake
Gopher snake Racer Western toad
Alligator lizard Common garter snake
Source: Cribbs & Associates
NATOMAS BASIN HCP – BIOLOGICAL DATAII - 50
April 2003
NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUES III - 1
April 2003
III. LAND USE ISSUES
The Land Use Issues chapter describes: A. Authorized development by Jurisdiction, B. Existing land uses, and C. Potential development under the NBHCP.

A. AUTHORIZED DEVELOPMENT BY JURISDICTION
The NBHCP establishes a multi-species conservation program to mitigate the expected loss of habitat and incidental take and/or loss of Covered Species that would result from planned urban development and other Covered Activities. Within each jurisdiction, certain levels of planned urban development are covered by this NBHCP. These levels are referred to as “Authorized Development” and are identified for each jurisdiction.

Based on a growth scenarios outlined by existing general plans for each Land Use Permittee, the total acreage potentially to be developed in the Natomas Basin is 13,533 to 20,033 acres, depending primarily on the extent of urbanization in Sutter County (see Table III-5). Although the adopted General Plans include a range of development, the NBHCP and related incidental take permits coverage, and the ITP issued to MAP, is limited to a maximum of 17,500 acres of urban development within the footprint for urban development shown on Figure 16 (“Planned Development”) . The NBHCP provides coverage for Authorized Development for each of the NBHCP Land Use Agency Permittees intending to allow urban development within the Natomas Basin (City of Sacramento and Sutter County). Such Authorized Development is limited to 15,517 acres. This Authorized Development, combined with MAP’s 1,983 acres of development authorized under a separate HCP and ITP’s, totals 17,500 acres and this combined acreage is referred to herein as Planned Development.

Any development in excess of that authorized by this HCP would not have take coverage under this HCP and such take coverage would require either an amendment to this HCP and permits or preparation of a separate HCP and approval of separate permits for that additional development, including an updated assessment of impacts and mitigation measures. The total acreage of Authorized Development in the Natomas Basin proposed to be covered under the City and Sutter County’s permits along with the acreage covered under the recently approved Metro Air Park incidental take permits is shown in Table III-1.

All lands within the NBHCP area that are not indicated as existing development on the Land Use Agencies’ “Baseline Maps” (for City of Sacramento’s Baseline Map and for Sutter County’s Baseline Map, see Exhibits B and C of the NBHCP Implementation Agreement) will be subject to full compliance with the NBHCP when or if they are developed. The one exception to this would be open areas left in an undisturbed state within areas otherwise developed, if the Natomas Basin Conservancy agrees to accept fee title to such lands or (see Section VI.D) a conservation easement over them.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUESIII - 2
April 2003
TABLE III-1

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT BY PERMITTEE
Permittee Planned Development Considered
Within the NBHCP
City of Sacramento 8,050 acres
Sutter County 7,467 acres
Metro Air Park1 1,983 acres
Total 17,500 acres

1. The Metro Air Park (MAP) project located in Sacramento County will impact a total of 1,983 acres.

While MAP is not a Permittee under this NBHCP, MAP has submitted a similar HCP and has obtained ITPs from the CDFG and the USFWS. Total development allocated to the City and Sutter County, combined with the anticipated 1,983 acres of MAP development, result in a total of 17,500 acres of development in the Basin.

All lands within the NBHCP area that are not indicated as existing development on the Land Use Agencies’ “Baseline Maps” (for City of Sacramento’s Baseline Map and for Sutter County’s Baseline Map, see Exhibits B and C of the NBHCP Implementation Agreement) will be subject to full compliance with the NBHCP when or if they are developed. The one exception to this would be open areas left in an undisturbed state within areas otherwise developed, if the Natomas Basin Conservancy agrees to accept fee title to such lands or (see Section VI.D) a conservation easement over them.

The Authorized Development allowed under the NBHCP for the City and Sutter County as specified in Table III-1 shall remain covered by the NBHCP for the City of Sacramento and Sutter County regardless of the rate of the development or modifications to land use designations of other jurisdiction(s).

Jurisdictions which are not party to the NBHCP and propose urban development in the basin would be required to independently obtain incidental take coverage and achieve compliance with the state and federal Endangered Species Acts in a manner that does not undermine the species protection measures and conservation strategy of the NBHCP.

In particular, any increase in the total authorized level of Authorized Development covered by the NBHCP beyond 15,517 or an increase beyond the proposed 17,500 acres of Planned Development shall require an amendment to the NBHCP and shall be subject to additional biological or other analysis as deemed appropriate by the USFWS and the CDFG (see Section VI.C) and will require an amendment to the incidental take permits or issuance of new permits.) The Sacramento International Airport is within the NBHCP Plan Area, but expansion of the airport is not covered by the NBHCP Incidental Take Permits. The airport will mitigate for future disturbance to airport lands through coordination between the Airport and Sacramento County, and obtain any necessary NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUES III - 3
April 2003
incidental take coverage from USFWS and CDFG. The specific areas of potential airport expansion are not currently specified.

Authorized Development may not be transferred among jurisdictions unless an analysis of the effects of such transfer on the effectiveness of the conservation strategy contained in the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program demonstrates that the transfer would not compromise the effectiveness of the Operating Conservation Program. Such a transfer would also require the consent of all agencies or entities affected by the transfer, including affected Land Uses Agencies and the Wildlife Agencies and would require review in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws.

B. EXISTING LAND USE
Existing land uses in the HCP were developed based on the 1997 database for land uses as updated by field check and geographic information system mapping conducted by CH2MHill in 2001. The 2001 break-out of land use by type (acres) provided by CH2MHill is included in Table III-4. Agricultural cover types described herein reflect conditions as of 1997. Urban development acreage and drainage/waterway data have been updated to reflect 2001 conditions.

1. Agriculture
Agriculture is the primary land use in the Natomas Basin with approximately 42,800 acres in agricultural production in 1997. Land under Williamson Act contracts (entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act, California Government Code Section 51200, et seq. “The Williamson Act”) in the Sacramento County portion of the Natomas Basin comprises 9,195 acres (Sacramento County General Plan Land Use Map). Sutter County began participating in the Williamson Act program in 2000, and as of February 2002 there were 2,076 acres of land within Sutter County’s portion of the Natomas Basin under Williamson Act contract. Primary crops grown in the Natomas Basin include rice, safflower, wheat, barley, alfalfa, corn, pasture land, tomatoes, and fruit trees. Rice cultivation within the Natomas Basin as of 1997 is shown on Figure 15.

The relationship between agriculture in the Natomas Basin Plan Area to the integrity of the Natomas Basin giant garter snake population is unique as compared to the relationship between other land uses in the Natomas Basin to the population's viability. Agriculture within the Natomas Basin: (1) provides habitat that the giant garter snake can occupy; (2) provides waterways necessary to the giant garter snake's mobility throughout the Natomas Basin; (3) contributes to economies of scale for the use of resources such as water, thereby lowering the costs for operating the agricultural reserves; and (4) non-rice farming within the Natomas Basin increases the long term habitat opportunities for the giant garter snake by allowing rice farms to rotate to other crops when the cost of rice is down, rather than letting the farm go fallow, losing the water supply, and creating significant start-up costs to return the acreage to habitat.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUESIII - 4
April 2003
Rice: About 95% of all California rice is grown in the Sacramento Valley (U.C. Agricultural Issues Center 1994); and rice lands in the Natomas Basin grow about 3% of the State total. Rice crops are grown in standing water for most of the season; heavy (impermeable) soils and a plentiful water supply are essential. Rice fields are first prepared by discing and leveling using heavy equipment. Fields are then flooded with water from the applicable irrigation source to a depth of 2 to 3 inches. Water requirements for rice farming in the Sacramento region have been estimated at between 4.82 and 6.70 acre-feet of water per acre each year (WESCO 1991). This includes consumption through evapotranspiration and percolation and outflow to the Sacramento River or to recirculation systems. Herbicides are applied to the water to control growth of aquatic weeds and insecticides are applied to combat water weevil and shrimp. The herbicides and the insecticides are held in the water on the fields until the chemicals begin to degrade due to their exposure to sunlight. Following their degradation, and two to three weeks before harvest, the water is drained from the field. Ninety percent (90%) of the rice crops have a 145-day growing season from mid-April to mid-August.

The residual rice straw in the fields after harvesting is typically burned, plowed under, or flooded.

Flooding to dispose of rice straw is becoming more prevalent as the practice of burning rice straw is being phased out due to air quality prohibitions. In addition to rotting the rice stubble, flooded rice fields provide wetland habitat for ducks, geese and other migratory waterfowl.

Agricultural water is provided by groundwater or is diverted from the Sacramento River by Natomas Mutual which supplies the Natomas Basin. The company is a private mutual water company that holds water rights for landowners. Natomas Mutual has several diversion canals on the Sacramento River which feed a network of smaller canals and ditches leading to the agricultural fields. This network includes ditches owned by the RD 1000.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has subsidy programs which are administered through the Farm Services Agency (FSA) at the county level. Farmers participate in the program by annually reporting their base crop acreage to the FSA. Participating farmers can receive a price deficiency payment when market prices fall below the target price established by Congress as the break even point. Table III-4 shows 1997 totals for agriculture in the Natomas Basin.

2. Waterways
The Natomas Basin is served by an extensive network of water delivery and drainage channels operated by Natomas Mutual and RD 1000. These channels, combined with the extensive rice fields within the Basin, are important habitat areas for the giant garter snake and other wetland associated species within the Basin. Since giant garter snakes live in the canals and ditches maintained by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual, canal and ditch maintenance activities of the Water Agencies may result in take of the listed species. RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual are committed to reducing impacts of operation and maintenance practices on Covered Species and, to the extent practicable, to observing practices that are beneficial to these species, particularly the giant garter snake.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUES III - 5
April 2003
The acreage calculations and mile calculations for canals and drains in the Natomas Basin, as of the 2001 baseline, and by jurisdiction, are shown below in the following two tables. Table III-2 shows the number of miles of canals and drains by Class in 2001 for the City of Sacramento, Metro Air Park, Other Sacramento County, and Sutter County, with totals for each class and jurisdiction. Table III-3 shows the acres of canals and drains, by jurisdiction, for the same 2001 baseline. The canal types are separated into four classes; Class I, Class II, Class III, and Class IV. Class I canals are the largest canals within the Basin and have been mapped upon aerial photos to determine the land area within these major canal. Class II through Class IV canals are lesser canals with assumed widths that range from 66 feet to 38 feet in width, respectively.

TABLE III-2
CANALS AND DRAINS IN THE NATOMAS BASIN - 2001 (MILES)
Canal Type City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Other
Sacramento
County
Sutter
County TOTAL
Class I 13.9 0.0 14.9 7.1 35.9
Class II 4.0 4.0 18.0 24.5 50.5
Class III 15.1 3.5 50.5 28.5 97.6
Class IV 5.1 4.1 31.4 22.3 62.9
TOTAL 38.1 11.6 114.9 82.4 246.9
Source:CH2M Hill, September 2001.

3. Road Network
The road network in the Natomas Basin occupies a substantial acreage of land. The Natomas Basin is traversed by 25 miles of State and Interstate highway corridors (I-80, I-5, and State Route 70/99).

These roadways have several traffic lanes in each direction and the right-of-way widths vary with terrain and interchanges (Caltrans, District 4, pers. comm.). Smaller (2-lane) surface streets serving agricultural areas in Sacramento County and Sutter County add to the linear mileage of the paved roadway network.

In the Natomas area of the City of Sacramento, roads serving the Arco Arena and other urbanized areas have also been constructed. In 1993, Thomas Reid Associates estimated that 1,527 acres (3% of the land area in the Basin) had been paved either in freeway or local roads. Table III-4 shows acreage totals for highways in the Natomas Basin in 2001. Other roads are included in the “Urban” category of Table III-4.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUESIII - 6
April 2003
TABLE III-3
CANALS AND DRAINS IN THE NATOMAS BASIN - 2001 (ACRES)
Canal Type City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Other
Sacramento
County
Sutter
County TOTAL
Class I 129 0 308 66 503
Class IIa 32 32 144 196 404
Class IIIa 90 21 301 170 582
Class IVa 23 19 145 103 289
TOTAL 275 72 898 534 1,779
a Class II, III, and IV canals and drains are linear features in the GIS database. Conversion to area features required using a standard width for each canal type, which was determined to be 65.9, 49.2, and 38.0 feet for Class II, III, and IV canals, respectively, based on information from Natomas Mutual. These standard widths include adjacent upland areas (e.g., maintenance roads) in addition to channel width.

Source:CH2M Hill, September 2001.

4. Urban Development
Before the original HCP was adopted and the incidental take permits were issued to the City of Sacramento in December 1997, existing urban development in the Natomas Basin was concentrated in the southern portion of the Basin near Interstate 80. Most residential development existed within the South Natomas area of the City of Sacramento in the southeastern portion of the Basin, east of I-5 and south of I-80. Other residential areas included rural estates north of Del Paso Road and west of Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (now known as Steelhead Creek), a mobile home park on El Centro Road, and miscellaneous scattered single family residences. In addition to residential uses, other areas of development included the Natomas Sewage Treatment Pumping Station, Natomas Air Park (now closed), Sacramento International Airport (formerly known as Sacramento Metropolitan Airport), Arco Arena, Raley’s Distribution Center, and the Northgate Business Park industrial area. Overall, as of 2001, about 7,267 acres had been urbanized, (including highways, airport and other uses) in the Basin and therefore did not provide habitat for Covered Species or require mitigation. Table III-4 shows the land use acreage totals in the Natomas Basin in 2001.

Between 1998 and December 2001, about 3,787 acres of urbanization occurred in the Natomas Basin. About 2,250 acres of residential areas in North Natomas and the western portion of South Natomas were developed. The following non-residential projects were built in North Natomas: a 600,000 square foot retail center, known as Natomas Marketplace at Truxel Road and I-80; 108,000 square foot office building along Del Paso Road; 80,000 square foot office building at Arena Corporate Center along Arena Boulevard; and three office buildings at Gateway Park and Arena Boulevards, totaling about 100 acres.

Also, the following non-residential projects were built in South Natomas: Sutter Health building, California NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUES III - 7
April 2003
Farm Bureau building, BTV Crown Corporate Center office buildings, and the alternative high school, totaling about 75 acres. Also, about 300 acres of infrastructure were developed between 1998 and 2000 in the Natomas Basin, including comprehensive drainage plan improvements, detention basins, streets, water mains and other miscellaneous improvements. During the 2001 construction season, 1,062 acres of land were converted to development under the City’s Settlement Agreement.

TABLE III-4
LAND USES BY JURISDICTION - 2001 (ACRES)
Land Use Classa City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Other
Sacramento
County
Sutter
County TOTAL
Airport 18 0 1,512 21 1,551
Alfalfa 0 0 137 234 371
Canals 129 0 308 66 503
Grassland 454 0 293 138 886
Highways 450 0 414 571 1,435
Idle 838 50 480 94 1,464
Non-rice Crops 4,905 325 8,591 2,866 16,686
Oak groves 15 2 70 11 98
Orchard 13 0 169 0 182
Other 148 0 305 15 468
Pasture 35 22 261 355 674
Ponds and seasonally
wet areas
7 4 75 10 96
Rice 987 1,541 8,427 11,737 22,693
Riparian 24 0 93 6 124
Ruderal 1,429 6 261 274 1,970
Rural residential 49 10 170 148 377
Tree groves 36 23 39 8 106
Urban 3,298 0 229 327 3,854
TOTAL 12,836 1,983 21,836 16,881 53,537
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database, (CH2M Hill, 2001).

Note: Urban uses noted herein reflect 2001 conditions. Agricultural cover types reflect 1997 uses. Since 1997, all rice production within Metro Air Park has been discontinued.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUESIII - 8
April 2003
Airport Lands within the ownership boundary for the Sacramento International Airport, including all land use types (e.g., facilities, runways, open lands and farmlands adjacent to runways) within boundary. Does not include airport buffer lands (e.g., south of I-5). Also includes the former Natomas Air Park and several small rural airstrips (one in Sacramento County and two in Sutter County).

Alfalfa Based on a subset of the DWR “Pasture” land use category that includes alfalfa production, as estimated for the 2001 baseline. Includes known alfalfa fields along Garden Highway in Sutter County.

Canals The largest (Class I) canals and drains (including adjacent maintenance roads) in the Natomas Basin, primarily the ones already digitized for the DWR land use maps. Includes the East Drain, West Drain, Main Drain, North Drain, and the Central Main Canal. Does not include smaller canals and drains, which are recorded in the project database as linear features.

Grassland Based on DWR “Native Vegetation” land use category with additional information provided by May & Associates field data and aerial photo interpretation, as estimated for the 2001 baseline. Includes known uncultivated grasslands, primarily along the eastern border of the Natomas Basin.

Highways Includes Interstates 5 and 80, S.R. 99/70, and interchanges, including all areas within medians.

Idle Based on DWR “Idle” land use category - agricultural lands temporarily out of production.

Non-Rice Crops Based on the DWR land use categories of “Grain and Hay Crops,” “Field Crops,” and “Tilled Lands.” In the Natomas Basin, this category includes primarily wheat, corn, safflower, and tomatoes.

Oak Groves Includes several isolated pockets of mature oak trees east of Garden Highway.

Orchard Based on the DWR land use categories of “Deciduous Fruits/Nuts” and “Citrus and Subtropical.” In the Natomas Basin, this includes primarily pear, peach, and walnut orchards adjacent to Garden Highway.

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.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUES III - 9
April 2003
Pasture Based on DWR “Pasture” land use category, including primarily irrigated pasture in the Natomas Basin.

Ponds/Wet Areas Wetland/marsh areas including Pritchard’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 non- native grasses, and most are occasionally tilled for fire control.

Rural Residential Includes farmhouses and farm equipment yards. Includes DWR’s “Semi- Agricultural” land use category, with additional information provided by aerial photo interpretation.

Tree Groves Includes non-riparian stands of trees other than mature oaks. Based on DWR’s “Native Vegetation” land use category, with additional information by May & Associates data and aerial photo interpretation.

Urban Urbanized areas. Primarily in the City of Sacramento, but also including unincorporated areas along El Centro Road in Sacramento County and Pacific Avenue in Sutter County.

5. Sacramento International Airport
Sacramento International Airport (SIA) currently uses 2,800 acres for runways, terminals, hangers and extensive north-south flyover buffers (see Figure 2, Natomas Basin and Affected Jurisdictions). The airport owns additional land as shown in the breakdown below. The airport property is generally bounded by the County line to the north and the Sacramento River to the south, and extends roughly 1.5 miles west from Powerline Road. The Airport is owned and operated by the County of Sacramento.

Land under the control of the Sacramento County Department of Airports includes the airport facilities and surrounding buffer lands acquired to minimize conflicts between airport operations and NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUESIII - 10
April 2003
encroaching urban development (see Figure 17). These areas have been mapped by CH2M Hill and the actual airport facilities (land inside the airport fenceline) is estimated to include 1,505 acres. Additionally, the Department of Airports has acquired approximately 4,050 acres of surrounding buffer lands. Thus, the total area under the direct control of the County Department of Airports is 5,565 acres. The Department is also currently seeking to acquire an additional 438 acres of buffer lands.

In March 1996, the Sacramento County Department of Airports adopted a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under 14 CFR 139.337 (Hall 1996). The WHMP assesses the extent of wildlife hazards at SIA and directs the Airport to manage wildlife hazards to reduce risk to public safety and risk of property damage. The WHMP plan is based on an Ecological Study completed in July 1993.

The main wildlife hazard is bird strikes--i.e., collisions between aircraft and birds. Modern aircraft engines and windshields are designed to resist damage from bird strikes and strikes seldom result in accidents. However, bird strikes do cause significant repair expense. The greatest threat to aircraft is large bird species, which individually can cause significant damage, and flocking birds, which can result in multiple strikes.

The most prominent wildlife hazards for airports are birds that occur on or near airport grounds and that fly across an aircraft's flight path during landing or takeoff. Most airports experience 70%-90% of all strikes in this area under 500 ft AGL (above ground level). At SIA, about 50% of the strikes occur under 500 ft AGL. SIA is located in the Pacific Flyway and is in the Sacramento Valley, a major waterfowl wintering area. Wintering waterfowl contribute to a greater than average frequency of birds struck above 500 ft AGL because waterfowl tend to fly high to and from feeding and roosting/loafing areas. Waterfowl account for 50% of the strikes at SIA where the species could be determined and the majority of strikes at SIA, 46%, occur in winter during the months of December, January, and February. SIA experiences a higher than average bird strike/air operations ratio than most airports at about 1 in 4,000 landings or takeoffs. FAA encourages keeping strikes below 1 in 10,000.

The WHMP addresses a range of on-site management actions to be undertaken by the airport to reduce attractiveness of the airport lands to birds and to disperse birds that occur. Birds are attracted by open water, including ponded rainwater, and food from crops or recently tilled lands. Birds are dispersed by "hazing" (frightening birds with loud noises or recorded distress calls). One component of the WHMP calls for reducing open water in drainage ditches, which could reduce GGS habitat. Another component calls for elimination of hawk roost trees near the runway and could marginally affect Swainson's hawk habitat.

In general, the FAA identifies the area within two miles of the runway centerline as the critical zone for managing wildlife hazards. For the Natomas Basin, the 2-mile zone extends east nearly to U.S. 99.

The WHMP directs airports to avoid placing bird attractant uses in the critical zone, including solid waste disposal sites and wildlife refuges. FAA regulations govern placement of refuse dumps near airports.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUES III - 11
April 2003
In May, 1997, the FAA published an Advisory Circular concerning wildlife attractants near airports (FAA 1997). This Advisory Circular recommends the following distances between an airport's aircraft movement areas, loading ramps, or aircraft parking areas and the wildlife attractant: (1) 5,000 feet for airports serving piston-powered aircraft; and (2) 10,000 feet for airports serving turbine-powered aircraft.

In addition, the Circular recommends that a distance of five statute miles be maintained between a wildlife attractant and the airport's approach or departure airspace if the attractant may cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace.

Rice farming has been a historic, ubiquitous use of the agricultural lands surrounding SIA and are typically considered impractical and unnecessary to regulate by the Department of Airports (Glen Sanders, Sacramento County Department of Airports, and Thomas Hall, USDA, Animal Damage Control, pers. comm). Rice farming near the runways is not considered to be a significant source of wildlife hazards in the Natomas Basin, with the exception of grain spillage left in the fields following harvest, which attracts birds.

During the summer growing season, migratory waterfowl are absent and fields attract a relatively small number of other birds, such as egrets and herons, that are considered a potential threat to aircraft. Once harvested, however, grain spillage creates an obvious attraction to waterfowl, especially in rain flooded fields. The practice of winter flooding in lieu of burning to remove the rice straw may broaden the range of birds attracted to the rice fields and pose a more significant threat to aircraft (Thomas Hall, pers. comm).

In addition, the use of managed marsh as wetlands as described in Chapter IV of the NBHCP (see Sections IV.C.3.d and VI.) is unlikely to pose bird strike hazards to SIA due to both their being sited within prescribed safe distances indicated and by the fact that they are not designed to attract migratory waterfowl, the type of bird the SIA evidences is of most concern. These factors must be taken into account when selecting and managing reserve lands under the NBHCP.

Sacramento International Airport (Buffer Lands)
Surrounding Sacramento International Airport, there are airport buffer lands which are maintained in agricultural uses. These lands are considered beneficial to the Covered Species within the Basin in that they provide a large contiguous block of predominantly upland habitat. Development of these buffer lands to industrial or other commercial uses will be considered a significant change in the NBHCP and would require that the County either participate in a revision to the HCP, or apply for an individual take permit that mitigates for project impacts. Although the Permittees are not relying on the Airport buffer lands as mitigation for effects within the Natomas Basin, retaining these lands in agricultural uses will contribute to the overall success of NBHCP conservation strategies for the Covered Species.

C. POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Three separate local governments have jurisdiction over the NBHCP Area. Within the Basin, 16,581 acres lie in Sutter County and 36,656 acres lie in Sacramento County. Within Sacramento County, 12,836 acres of the Basin lie within the city limits of the City of Sacramento. The City portion of the Basin NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUESIII - 12
April 2003
AREA/PROJECT LAND PLAN USES (acres)
Sutter County 3,500 to 10,000 a
Sacramento Airport Unspecified
Metro Air Park (Sacramento Co.) 1,983
North Natomas Community Plan
(City of Sacramento)
7,150b
South Natomas (City of Sacramento) 900b
TOTAL 13,533 - 20,033
a. Maximum development scenario derived in the 1995 Sutter County general plan which designates 10,000 acres within the Natomas Basin as Industrial/Commercial Reserve and allows development of 3,500 acres by year 2015. b. The total number of acres projected for development in the NNCP area is 7,150 acres, including 6,510 acres within the City limits (as of 12/31/00) and 640 acres within the County area anticipated to be annexed into the City during 2002 (excluding existing development shown in the Baseline Map - Exhibit A in the Implementation Agreement). The total number of acres projected for development in the SNCP area is 900 acres, including the approximately 50 acre property annexed into the City (Costa, Giannoni, Parr). As of 12/31/00, Urban Development Permits have been issued on 2,676 + acres in both the NNCP and SNCP areas. The entire 8,050 City of Sacramento acres (North Natomas and South TABLE III-5

POTENTIAL URBAN DEVELOPMENT
consists of the North Natomas Community Plan Area, and the South Natomas Community Plan Area.

Each of the land use planning agencies in the Natomas Basin (City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, and Sutter County) have land use plans governing anticipated future development within the NBHCP area.

The status of land use planning within each jurisdiction is discussed below.

1. Foreseeable Urban Development and Status Under the NBHCP Local governments guide land use through their general plans. While the general plans of the City, Sutter, and Sacramento County are subject to amendment over the 50-year term of the NBHCP and permits, they offer a reasonable basis for predicting the extent and location of future development. The following discussion of land use planning is not a limitation of the NBHCP or its associated permits; the permits will apply to all Authorized Development in the Natomas Basin. For purposes of the permits, the NBHCP makes no distinction between areas with approved land use plans and areas with current agricultural zoning, and nothing in the NBHCP affects the land use status of any parcel. The underlying development activities must be authorized by the local agency before incidental take authorization under the City or Sutter County’s incidental take permits will be extended to that project. Land use entitlements will continue to remain under the authority of the respective local jurisdictions. Figure 2 shows the footprint of the area in which Authorized Development would be covered by the incidental take permits. Impacts to habitat and species and the related mitigation program are based on an analysis of the effects of land use development within the areas shown.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUES III - 13
April 2003
Table III-5 shows the currently approved or reasonably foreseeable maximum growth scenario for the Natomas Basin. As discussed below, a range is shown for Sutter County. The purpose of these data is to provide an estimate of potential urban development and resulting take and to provide a basis to assess funding requirements. Existing plans prepared by the City, Sutter, and Sacramento County are discussed solely for the purpose of identifying likely levels of development and its potential impacts. a. Sacramento County
The Sacramento County General Plan was updated in December 1993. There are two urban policy areas affecting County lands within the Natomas Basin, the Sacramento International Airport/Vicinity Special Planning Area (Metro Air Park) and the North Natomas Community Plan Area (the majority of which is in the City of Sacramento). The Sacramento County General Plan Land Use Diagram (Sacramento County General Plan Update 1993) incorporates the land use designations specified within both these special planning areas. The majority of Sacramento County land within the Basin and outside of these policy areas is designated for retention as Agricultural Cropland by the Sacramento County General Plan. At this time, it is not anticipated that these agricultural lands will be converted to urban land uses.

There is currently a proposal before Sacramento County to expand the Urban Services Boundary to include approximately 6,500 acres. This proposal would affect land within Sacramento County’s northeast portion of the Natomas Basin. This proposal has not been analyzed within or covered by the NBHCP and the effects on endangered species and mitigation for the development of this land would not be provided through the NBHCP. Thus incidental take authorization for such potential development would not be based on the NBHCP. Any further urban development would require new biological analysis and regulatory review and associated permits.

Sacramento County currently is not seeking coverage under the HCP. Other than MAP, whose landowners association has obtained a separate incidental take permit, Sacramento County currently has no approved development plans.

Metro Air Park
The Metro Air Park Special Planning Area lies east of the airport property and encompasses 1,892 acres. In August 1993, Sacramento County amended its zoning ordinance to allow airport related uses, light manufacturing, high tech research and development, professional office space, limited support retail, and recreation. Essentially all of the area is foreseen for urbanization. Also, 119 acres of off-site improvements are anticipated for the Metro Air Park project - 28 acres are in the City of Sacramento and 91 acres are in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County (therefore 1,983 acres of development are assigned to Metro Air Park in Tables III-1 and III-5).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUESIII - 14
April 2003
b. City of Sacramento
North Natomas Community Plan Area
The North Natomas Community Plan was adopted in 1986 by the City of Sacramento and was amended in 1994. North Natomas is designated by the City's General Plan to be the City's major growth area for housing and employment. The Arco Arena, a major event center for sports and concerts, is located here. The planned community encompasses 9,038 acres (7,438 acres within Sacramento city limits and 1,600 acres currently of unincorporated Sacramento County land). A 640 acre portion of the unincorporated county area is currently under consideration for annexation into the City of Sacramento and is included in the City’s Authorized Development shown in Table III-1.

The North Natomas Community Plan sets forth a vision, guiding policies and implementing policies for each plan element: Land Use, Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, and Implementation Programs. The North Natomas Community Plan sets forth a new urban form for North Natomas that includes (1) a Town Center and Regional Park as the “heart of the community”; (2) sustainable neighborhoods each with an elementary school as its focal point with a variety of housing types, parks and open space, commercial services, and transit service close to employment; (3) employment centers designed to be mixed-use centers with primarily employment generators (office, industrial) but may include residential and retail uses also; and (4) land use is designed to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel, specifically transit, bicycling, and walking. The recent inventory of planned land uses in the NBHCP are as follows:

Major Employers 2,378 acres
Residential 3,599 acres
Public/Civic Uses 269 acres
Parks 494 acres
Agricultural and Freeway Buffers 255 acres
Drainage and Detention Facilities 420 acres
Other Open Space 354 acres
Agriculture 125 acres
Roads/Light Rail right-of-way 1,144 acres
Total 9,038 acres
Of this total, the following existing projects within the City were exempt from compliance with the NBHCP because they comprise development existing before the 1997 NBHCP: 185 acres Arco Arena Sports Complex; 75 acres Coral Business Center (including Coke and Raley’s); 25 acre County Sanitation property; 10 acres Natomas School along Del Paso Road; 25 acres Stadium Estates mobile home park; and miscellaneous existing road and utility facilities totaling 964 acres. Also, approximately 924 acres within the unincorporated portion of the County (south of Del Paso Road) were existing development and will not be subject to compliance with the NBHCP. Based on the 964 acres of existing development in the City NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUES III - 15
April 2003
and 924 acres of existing development in the County, 7,150 remaining acres of the total 9,038 acres in the North Natomas Community Plan will be subject to compliance with the NBHCP (about 6,510 acres in the City and 640 acres in the County- north of Del Paso Road).

Between the inception of the 1997 NBHCP in December 1997 and December 2001, private and public development has paid mitigation fees on 3,821 acres of the 8,050 acres in the City’s Permit Area, with fees totaling $13.9 million.

South Natomas Community Plan Area
The South Natomas Community Plan Area was adopted by the City of Sacramento in 1988. The Community Plan Area totals 3,464 acres and is largely urbanized with residential, office, light industrial, and other development. As of December 1997, 900 acres of South Natomas remain undeveloped and subject to future compliance with the HCP. Since the inception of the 1997 NBHCP, private and public uses have paid the mitigation fee and been issued Urban Development Permits on 276 acres. (The South Natomas Community Plan area includes the Natomas West area, west of the Main Drain, formerly known as Willow Creek or known as West Natomas.)
Annexation Requests and Potential Expansion of Sphere of Influence As mentioned above, the annexation area known as the panhandle has always been included in the North Natomas Community Plan and is included in the Authorized Development area of the City; however, the City’s incidental take permits would not apply to the panhandle area until and unless the area is annexed to the City. The City has also received development applications or preliminary expressions of interest for two properties adjacent to the current city limits within the Natomas Basin: 1) West Lakeside, and 2) Greenbriar Farms.

West Lakeside: This proposed annexation area is located at the northwest corner of Del Paso Road and the current city limits, next to the developing Westlake neighborhood. The property is 135 acres in size and an environmental document has been started.

Greenbriar Farms: This proposed annexation area is between the developing North Natomas neighborhoods and the Metro Air Park. The area is 573 gross acres in size.

On June 27, 2000, the Sacramento City Council embarked on a study to consider expansion of the City’s sphere of influence. The sphere of influence is currently co-terminus with the city limits in the Natomas Basin. If eventually requested by the City and approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), the City’s sphere of influence could be expanded. However, no coverage for this expanded area is provided under the NBHCP.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUESIII - 16
April 2003
c. Sutter County
The adopted Sutter County General Plan (1995) designates County areas within the Natomas Basin as Agriculture and Industrial/Commercial Reserve. The Sutter County General Plan designated 10,500 acres in South Sutter County as Industrial/Commercial Reserve, with approximately 10,000 of these acres located in the Natomas Basin. The 1995 General Plan allowed the development of 3,500 acres of this land within the Industrial/Commercial Reserve for the 20 year planning horizon of the General Plan.

Under the current Sutter County General Plan, the balance of the Industrial/ Commercial Reserve has the potential to develop over the 50 year term of the NBHCP.

Sutter County has recently approved the South Sutter County Specific Plan (SSCSP), which allows an initial 3,500 acres of development within the County’s Industrial/Commercial Reserve. The boundaries of the Specific Plan Area are depicted on Figure 2 - Natomas Basin and Affected Jurisdictions.

For purposes of this NBHCP, the Specific Plan Area is considered to be very likely to develop, while the remaining land within the Industrial/Commercial Reserve is considered to have the potential to develop over the term of the NBHCP.

The total area of the Industrial/Commercial Reserve within the Natomas Basin includes approximately 10,000 acres. A portion of this total area falls within one mile of the Sacramento River and is, therefore, within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. Sutter County has excluded land within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone from its Permit Area and will seek no coverage for development in the Zone under the NBHCP or the associated ITP’s. Land within the Industrial/Commercial Reserve that is more than one mile from the river, and therefore outside the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, totals approximately 8,573 acres.

Following adoption of the NBHCP and issuance of ITP’s, the County will initiate a General Plan Amendment to remove the land within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone from the Industrial/Commercial Reserve and designate such land for agricultural uses.

Because the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program to adequately minimize and mitigate the effects of take of the Covered Species depends in part on the exclusion of future urban development from the Sutter County portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, approval by Sutter County of future urban development within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s OCP and would trigger a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional urban development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of Sutter’s Permits.

While the SSCSP identifies 3,500 acres of land for near term development, the remaining areas to be developed within the Industrial/Commercial Reserve have not been specified. Within the total 17,500 acres of development to be considered within the NBHCP, 7,467 has been allocated to Sutter County.

Therefore, approximately 1,106 acres of the 8,573 acre Industrial/ Commercial Reserve located outside NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUES III - 17
April 2003
the Swainson’s Hawk Zone cannot be developed under the take authorization sought under the NBHCP and the associated ITP’s.

Prior to 1997, a total of 146 acres of urban development and 291 acres of roads and highways existed in Sutter County. This pre-existing development is exempt from mitigation requirements under NBHCP. From 1997 through 2001, a single project was constructed within Sutter County, the SYSCO warehouse facility that occupies approximately 50 acres in the vicinity of Pacific Avenue and Sankey Road.

The SYSCO project is located within the proposed South Sutter County Specific Plan and this project is counted among the total acres of Authorized Development that is allocated to Sutter County under the NBHCP. Mitigation measures have been adopted by Sutter County, which include purchase of 25 acres of habitat mitigation land consistent with NBHCP guidelines. The purchase of the 25 acres will be in accordance with all provisions identified in the NBHCP. It is anticipated the purchase may be combined with other TNBC purchases.

2. Conversion of Agricultural Lands
In 2001, approximately 46,230 acres in the Natomas Basin were either in agriculture or other undeveloped uses. As the adopted general plans described above are implemented, agricultural lands will be converted to urban uses. This conversion process is expected to occur over many years. In the Sutter County portion of the Basin, large areas of agriculture will likely persist, after completion of NBHCP Authorized Development. Under the current Sacramento County General Plan (1993), agriculture in unincorporated Sacramento County outside the two urban policy areas designated by the County (Metro Air Park and North Natomas Community Plan Area) will continue to exist.

Development in the early years of the NBHCP will result in some loss of currently-farmed rice land.

As of 1997, the North Natomas Community Plan Area had 987 acres in rice. At the time of the 2001 baseline land use inventory for this HCP, the Metro Air Park had some 1,541 acres in rice. Outside the North Natomas Community Plan Area, the current distribution of rice in the Basin is roughly 42%. Because the Natomas Basin is partially urbanized, individual property owners of farm lands make decisions regarding types of crops, and in the case of rice, whether to fallow or drain fields fairly frequently. Thus, the acreage of agriculture by crop type, is often changing. The best available baseline of agricultural land uses by crop type as determined by CH2MHill and field checked by May and Associates (2001) is used as the baseline for this HCP and related analysis.

It is significant to note that total acres of cultivation and types of crops grown can vary significantly from year to year based on various factors, including market conditions and soil capability. Additionally, there has been a trend of property owners in urbanizing areas to fallow rice fields in expectation of urban development. This NBHCP presents a conservation plan based upon the recent agricultural production as generally described above and specifically noted within Table II-1.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – LAND USE ISSUESIII - 18
April 2003
NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-1
April 2003
IV. CONSERVATION PLAN
A. PLAN PURPOSE
This chapter describes the Conservation Plan to be implemented by the Plan Operator, The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC). The Chapter sets forth the guidelines and practices to be used by TNBC including the size and amount of reserves to be established, acquisition criteria for upland and wetland areas to be acquired and managed by TNBC, and reserve management practices to be employed by the TNBC to ensure successful habitat enhancement to support the Covered Species. Chapter V describes related and supportive avoidance and mitigation measures which will be undertaken by the Permittees including the TNBC, Land Use Agencies and Water Agencies. It is important to review both Chapters IV and V in concert in order to understand the full mitigation strategy of the HCP. Finally, Chapter VI describes provisions related to NBHCP implementation and establishes additional procedures and obligations for both TNBC and the other Permittees. (Note that the TNBC is both Plan Operator and a Permittee. The TNBC is a Permittee for purposes of participation in the NBHCP and for receipt of an Incidental Take Permit related to management of the habitat reserves on behalf of the City, Sutter County and other potential Permittees. The TNBC’s Permit Area is however, different from the other Permittees in that it includes the entire Natomas Basin Plan Area, and Area B thereby allowing the TNBC to purchase or otherwise control and operate habitat lands throughout the greater Natomas Basin area.) The NBHCP sets forth a program for the preservation and protection of habitat for threatened and endangered species potentially found in the Natomas Basin. Of the 53,537 acre Natomas Basin, about 7,267 acres were already developed in 1997, leaving a balance of 46,270 acres of undeveloped and agricultural land. The primary objective of the NBHCP is to provide a practical program to promote biological conservation along with Authorized Development in the Permit Areas and Water Agencies Covered Activities. The NBHCP is not intended to cover incidental take of listed species within the Natomas Basin resulting from activities which are not included as Covered Activities or are conducted by entities other than the NBHCP participants outside of the Permit Areas.

Among the mitigation and minimization measures outlined in the Plan, is a program that establishes a multi-habitat, multi-species conservation program to mitigate the incidental take of and expected loss of habitat for state and federally listed species and other species noted as covered by the Plan that would result from urban development and operation of irrigation and drainage systems. Activities covered by the NBHCP could result in incidental take, or take for scientific purposes (see Section VII), of some of the Covered Species (see Table I-1). Thus, the NBHCP constitutes the basis for requested incidental take permits for these species under the state and federal ESAs. Take of other species addressed by the NBHCP is expected to be infrequent or unlikely, but may occur in isolated cases (see Chapter VII). These species also would be covered by the permits if such take should occur.

Current development approvals, City and County general plans and community plans, and other plans (including MAP) are the basis for estimating development rates anticipated in the Basin, the resulting NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-2
April 2003
habitat loss expected from the Covered Activities authorized by the incidental take permits, and for evaluating the corresponding environmental impacts pursuant to NEPA and CEQA. Take resulting from urban development on Sacramento International Airport land would not be authorized by the NBHCP Incidental Take Permits. Apart from take associated with the MAP HCP which is accounted for in the NBHCP, the Plan does not permit the take of Covered Species within Sacramento County, with the following two exceptions: (1) take resulting from TNBC reserve operations; and (2) take resulting from the Water Agencies Covered Activities. The airport will mitigate for take of listed species affected by activities on airport lands through coordination between the Airport and Sacramento County, with USFWS and CDFG approval as previously described.

Under the NBHCP, the acquisition of lands or conservation easements for the purpose of creating and managing permanent habitat reserves is the primary mitigation for impacts to habitat of Covered Species resulting from urban development. For purposes of the Plan, the term "system of reserves" means mitigation lands generally and includes all habitat conserved and managed for the Covered Species, including rice fields by TNBC. The NBHCP describes a method for funding the land acquisition and management program for the acquired lands.

B. PLAN OPERATOR
In anticipation of the completion of the HCP and issuance of ITP’s, TNBC was formed as a non- profit corporation under the laws of the State of California in 1994. It is governed by the terms of the NBHCP, its commitments within the NBHCP Implementation Agreement for the respective Permittees, a Board of Directors, and Bylaws. Since January 1998, with the issuance of the ITP on December 31, 1997, the City of Sacramento appointed 5 Board members to the TNBC. The City collected Mitigation Fees of $13.9 M from 1996 (when the interim fee was put in place) to December 2001. The history of fee increases is shown on Table VI-3. In cooperation with USFWS, CDFG and the City, TNBC has acquired 2,104.14 acres of habitat reserve land to date on behalf of the City (See Table IV-1 below). To date, 100 percent of the mitigation land is within the Natomas Basin.

As well as acquiring habitat reserve land, the Conservancy has completed Site Specific Management Plans (SSMPs) on all but the 2 most recently acquired properties. A contract was granted in November 2001 to complete a Site Specific Land Management Plan for those 2 properties. The Conservancy has also completed an annual report each year since its inception per Section VI.G of the NBHCP, including Authorized Development activities, Conservancy activities, and annual surveys of the GGS and Swainson’s Hawk. A 5-year comprehensive Basin-wide survey of the Covered Species will be started in 2003 and completed in 2004.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-3
April 2003
TABLE IV-1
TNBC MITIGATION LAND ACQUISITION (January 2002)
Property Date Acquired Acres
Silva 1.7.99 159.200
Betts 4.5.99 138.992
Kismat 4.16.99 40.293
Bennett North 5.17.99 226.675
Bennett South 5.17.99 132.486
Lucich North 5.18.99 267.986
Lucich South 5.18.99 351.889
Brennan 6.15.00 241.376
Frazer 7.31.00 92.600
Souza 7.2.01 44.68
Natomas Farms 7.9.01 96.46
Ayala 2.2.02 311.5
Sills 7.15.02 575.56
Total 2679.7
Alleghany pending 50.00
Total 2729.7
TNBC Board of Directors is comprised of representatives from NBHCP Permittees, to be appointed as follows:

Number: The authorized number of Directors shall be a minimum of three and a maximum of fifteen. No reduction of the authorized number of Directors shall have the effect of removing any Director before that Director’s term of office expires.

Designation by the City of Sacramento : The City of Sacramento, as the original NBHCP Permittee, designated five (5) Directors when the City received its Permits in December 1997.

Designation by Sutter County: At such time as Sutter County adopts the NBHCP and executes the associated I.A., Sutter County shall be entitled to designate five (5) Directors when Sutter County has received its Permits.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-4
April 2003
Designation by Natomas Mutual: At such time as Natomas Mutual adopts the NBHCP, executes an Implementation Agreement with the USFWS and CDFG, and receives its Permits, it may appoint one (1) Director to TNBC Board.

Designation by RD 1000 : At such time as RD 1000 adopts the NBHCP, executes an Implementation Agreement with the USFWS and CDFG, and receives its Permits, it may appoint one (1) Director to TNBC Board.

TNBC performs an important function for the NBHCP by establishing and overseeing a concerted program for acquiring, enhancing and managing mitigation lands in perpetuity on behalf of the Permittees.

Specifically, TNBC will receive mitigation fees collected by the City and County (and from the County of Sacramento for the Metro Air Park Project) , using the fees to establish mitigation lands, and to manage the mitigation lands for the benefit of the Covered Species. Mitigation lands are established through fee simple or easement acquisition. TNBC may legally buy and sell land, lease land for revenue, hold title to conservation easements, etc. As a non-governmental entity, TNBC has no powers of condemnation and can only purchase lands from willing sellers. TNBC also has the authority to establish and sign contracts with appropriate individuals or organizations for the purpose of carrying out specific activities under the NBHCP, including, but not limited to, managed marsh construction, habitat restoration, and monitoring.

All proceedings of TNBC shall be conducted in public, in a manner consistent with the Ralph M.

Brown Act (California Government Code, Section 54950 et seq.) regarding open and public meetings, and with the California Public Records Act (California Government Code, Section 6250, et. seq.) regarding maintenance of public records. TNBC may conduct closed sessions for real estate negotiations as permitted in its bylaws, included in Appendix F as may be amended from time to time (“TNBC Bylaws”). Pursuant to the TNBC Bylaws, the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act regarding the disclosure of information with respect to real property transactions (including but not limited to Gov. Code Sections 54954.5(b); 54956.8 and 54957.1(a)(1)) whether such transactions are pending or completed shall not apply. As used herein, “real property transactions” shall include options to purchase or lease real property, conservation easements, as well as farming contracts affecting real property that TNBC has acquired or is in negotiations to acquire. Moreover, any documents relating to real property transactions, either pending or completed, of TNBC shall be exempt from disclosure. TNBC may, in time, be succeeded by another suitable non- profit entity or by CDFG (see Section 3.2.11 of the Implementation Agreement).

1. NBHCP Technical Advisory Committee
Upon approval of the 1997 City of Sacramento NBHCP and issuance of ITP’s, the NBHCP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed. The TAC is and shall be comprised of representatives from the USFWS, CDFG, the Permittees, and any other future Permittees to advise TNBC in implementing the NBHCP. Each Land Use Agency, Water Agency, or other Permittee, the USFWS, and CDFG will appoint one or more members to the TAC. In addition, TNBC Board of Directors may invite, as needed, other qualified experts on Covered Species or marsh construction, administrative and legal personnel to NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-5
April 2003
assist the TAC, for limited time periods. The TAC's role under the NBHCP is intended to be strictly technical and scientific. It is to advise TNBC in making technical and biological decisions with respect to:
reserve land selection, enhancement, and management; monitoring programs and needs; species relocation or reintroduction plans; and other issues pertinent to technical implementation of the Plan. Only TAC representatives from the Permittees, the USFWS, and CDFG shall have the authority to vote with respect to any TAC decision.

C. CONSERVATION STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT

1. General Strategies to Mitigate the Impacts of Urban Development This section describes the Conservation Plan that will serve to mitigate the impacts of Authorized Development on Covered Species and habitat values in the Natomas Basin. Generally, this Conservation Plan will be implemented by TNBC, with direction provided by USFWS, CDFG and the Permittees through the TAC and through agency approval of acquisitions and management plans. Mitigation required of Authorized Development projects will include the collection and use of mitigation fees, and in some cases acceptance of land dedications, to set aside and manage 0.5 acres of habitat mitigation land for each 1.0 gross acre of development that occurs in the Basin. Additionally, the Land Use Agencies shall apply measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate take of Covered Species as described in Chapter V. The 0.5-to- 1 ratio will specifically mitigate for the loss of wetland habitat values necessary for the giant garter snake and other wetland associated species (see below, Section IV.C.2), and for the loss of upland habitat values necessary for the Swainson's hawk and other upland species (see below, Section IV.C.3).

Habitat reserves will be managed by TNBC and will consist of managed marsh habitats, upland habitats, rice fields (which will typically be leased for use to rice farmers), and associated buffers and infrastructure. The NBHCP does not specify any particular land area for acquisition for habitat reserves, since many factors will affect which land areas are ultimately purchased. Rather, this section specifies the criteria to be considered when reserve lands are selected. An exception to this policy for reserve locations is the City of Sacramento’s Settlement Agreement that resulted from the NBHCP litigation. The Settlement Agreement requires a limited number of reserve acres to be located within Sacramento County, including specific target lands near Fisherman's Lake, a requirement that may further enhance the ultimate TNBC reserve system. The Settlement Agreement applies only to a limited number of acres of the City’s Authorized Development that occurred between the settlement agreement and the adoption of this NBHCP.

For purposes of the NBHCP, Authorized Development of all currently undeveloped land within the Permit Areas of the City of Sacramento and Sutter County will be subject to the mitigation fee, including urban uses (residential, commercial, industrial), roads and utilities (public or private), schools and other public facilities, golf courses, and other developed parks, except as otherwise specified (see Section 4.6 of the Implementation Agreement).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-6
April 2003
a. Basis for 0.5 to 1 Mitigation Ratio
The NBHCP proposes a 0.5-to-1 mitigation ratio to be applied to the 17,500 acres of Authorized Development. This mitigation strategy will result in 8,750 acres of habitat reserves to be established and managed by TNBC. It should be noted that the effective habitat reserve ratio is actually higher than the 0.5 to 1 ratio, because not all lands to be developed under the NBHCP Permits are of high value to the Covered Species as habitat. Because portions of the Natomas Basin currently have marginal value as habitat, and because all land to be developed in the Basin will be subject to mitigation fees, in some cases the 0.5-to-1 mitigation ratio will result in a substantial increase in overall habitat value. Listed below are the key considerations in determining that the 0.5 to 1 mitigation ratio mitigates the impacts of incidental take authorized under the NBHCP:
(1) Overall, TNBC reserves will be of greater habitat value than the existing agricultural land that will be converted to urban development. The TNBC reserves will be specifically managed to create habitat to support the covered species, and species friendly management practices will be utilized by TNBC for the rice reserves operated by TNBC. (2) Much of the land to be developed after issuance of the NBHCP Permits is either of limited value as habitat or serves as habitat to a limited number of the Covered Species. In contrast, TNBC reserves will be enhanced and managed to provide a greater diversity of habitat that will serve a larger number of Covered Species. Thus, the reserves to be created through habitat management will offer greater opportunities for species survival by providing a refuge from persistent mechanical or in some cases chemical disturbance often associated with common agricultural practices.
(3) In the case of several wetland and vernal pool related plant species, TNBC reserves will provide habitat for native species’ restoration and reintroduction, if appropriate. (4) Numerous migratory bird species currently have minimal utilization of the Basin, but would have increased opportunities within TNBC managed reserves. (5) TNBC reserves will be managed to minimize take related to agricultural and land management activities.
(6) TNBC system of reserves will be managed and maintained in perpetuity, providing permanent habitat for the Covered Species.
(7) The NBHCP incorporates a detailed monitoring program that will track Covered Species population trends within TNBC reserves as well as at selected locations outside TNBC reserves within the Natomas Basin. The NBHCP monitoring data will inform and guide the Adaptive Management process, to achieve the Plan biological goals and objectives.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-7
April 2003
(8) TNBC reserves will generally be consolidated into large, biologically viable units with connectivity between individual reserve units.
b. Preparation of Site Specific Management Plans.

Generally, TNBC will improve and manage the system of reserves in a manner that will, to the maximum extent practicable, benefit all Covered Species. This shall be accomplished through preparation and implementation of Site Specific Management Plans that will address the specific resources and habitat values of each reserve site. While the TNBC system of reserves is intended to benefit all Covered Species, individual reserve sites may focus on either upland or wetland habitat that supports only a portion of the Covered Species. Overall, public access to TNBC reserves will be limited and TNBC endeavor will use its best efforts to eliminate illegal and incompatible uses such as dumping. trespass, or unauthorized off-road vehicles. Specific guidelines for the management of TNBC Reserves are provided in Section IV.D.1. The TAC will participate in the review of the management plans, and shall ensure that the management guidelines are incorporated into each management plan. The Wildlife Agencies will approve all SSMPs. c. Buffers within the Reserve Lands
Buffers shall be considered during the preparation of a site specific management plan for each reserve site.

Definition of Buffers: To the extent necessary and practicable, reserve lands that are modified to create improved wetland habitat shall 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. In addition, the buffers will help ensure that the management of reserve lands does not impose an unnecessary burden on adjoining landowners. Buffers shall be established so that they are inside the reserve system (i.e., the buffers shall be part of, not outside of, reserve lands) and shall count as mitigation land. For example, an upland buffer surrounding a wetland area, may in the individual site management plan be designed to provide foraging areas for some species, as well as providing a buffer or transition between uses
Buffers between improved wetlands and surrounding land uses will extend from the outside edge of the reserve (i.e., levee toe or maintenance road) to the boundary edge of the improved wetland area.

The width of the buffer and the management/uses of the buffer area shall be established at the time a Site Specific Management Plan is prepared for the particular reserve site. Typically, buffers will consist of native or ruderal vegetation and will vary between 30 and 75 feet in width, based on the compatibility of adjacent land uses. Where agricultural uses are incorporated within a reserve site, such agricultural uses (with appropriate best management practices to protect wildlife) may serve as the buffer area. Other uses that may be appropriate within the buffer area include TNBC access roads.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-8
April 2003
Reduction in Buffer Width: Buffers may be reduced to less than 30-feet in width where so designated in Site Specific Management Plans as reviewed by 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 shall be included in the management plan(s) for any given parcel or block of reserve land (see below, Section IV.C.1.d.).

Thus, the presence, width, or extent of buffers may vary with the situation, as long as they adequately reduce population mortality effects. For example, if the reserve lands are adjacent to other protected natural habitat or open space, then buffer widths could be reduced or eliminated. d. Connectivity
A primary goal of the NBHCP is to ensure connectivity between individual reserves, and connectivity between reserves and surrounding agricultural lands. Connections can be provided on along land, through water and through air to enable the necessary mobility of species within their ranges. One primary means of connection between water areas will be the drainage/irrigation canals within the Basin.

Under the management of RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual, this system of canals will be managed to enhance habitat values and minimize harm to Covered Species as specified in the NBHCP.

The NBHCP conservation strategy emphasizes maintaining connectivity between TNBC reserves to allow giant garter snake movement within the Natomas Basin. This species is highlighted 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 it is anticipated that other Covered Species will also be afforded adequate opportunities to migrate within the Basin.

The primary opportunity for connectivity between reserves is the system of channels maintained and operated by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual. RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual anticipate continuing the maintenance and operation of the canals into the future. These Water Agencies have noted that the elimination of existing channels within the Land Use Agencies’ Permit Areas would generally only occur in response to urban development. Because TNBC, under the guidelines of the NBHCP, generally acquires land separated from urban development, it is anticipated that urban development impacts on channels adjacent to reserves will be minimal.

The Water Agencies have not elected to apply for incidental take permits through this NBHCP, but may elect to pursue permits either through this Plan as written or through a modified version of this plan in the future. As such, this NBHCP and the related EIR/EIS have assessed the effectiveness of the NBHCP in the event the Water Agencies choose to participate or should they choose not to participate in the NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-9
April 2003
NBHCP. Since the canal system operated by Water Agencies provides the key movement corridors for the GGS, as identified through monitoring, the NBHCP acknowledges the process of avoidance and mitigation of impacts to GGS and connectivity in the event a canal essential to the GGS is closed. Once TNBC reserves have been acquired and key connectivity corridors have been identified, changes in water delivery and drainage operations affecting key channels must be considered by TNBC and appropriate actions shall be taken to ensure connectivity is maintained between reserves, thus ensuring connectivity throughout the reserve system. One of the mechanisms identified in the NBHCP to ensure viability of the reserve system is through relocating reserve components. Other options, which could be used to maintain integrity of existing reserves, include MOAs, easements, and outright purchases of land, which would be designed to ensure connectivity for GGS between TNBC reserves.

Since the system of canals in the Natomas Basin has shown the presence of the GGS and is known as habitat for the GGS, the NBHCP does not include the closure of canals as a Covered Activity. In other words, the proposed Covered Activities of the Water Agencies (See Chapter I, Covered Activities) do not include closure of canals or substantial modifications of canals, which may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, in the event of a proposed canal closure, the Water Agency (or project sponsor for canal closure) would likely be required to comply with the ESA and mitigate impacts under either Section 10 of the ESA (amendment of the NBHCP if the Water Agencies participate in this HCP effort, or preparation of a separate HCP) or Section 7, if federal funds or federal approval is required (as in the case of Section 404 Clean Water Act permits). Under either of these processes, direct impacts to the GGS as well as indirect impacts to the NBHCP/TNBC reserve system would be considered by USFWS and CDFG and would be mitigated by the Water Agency and/or project sponsor. Where possible, this HCP contemplates that the USFWS will support granting of MOAs or transfer easements or land in fee title to the TNBC to reduce impacts to the GGS and preserve connectivity of habitat areas between reserves in the Natomas Basin. In the event TNBC purchases essential canals to protect the GGS and connectivity, such acquisition shall be considered part of the reserve system, shall be counted as Mitigation Lands, and shall not be subject to the minimum reserve size, buffer and setback criteria established in the NBHCP for typical Mitigation Land reserves.

While TNBC will be the entity directly responsible for implementing measures to maintain connectivity between TNBC reserves, it is ultimately the obligation of the Land Use Agency Permittees to ensure that the NBHCP Operating Conservation Plan succeeds in achieving the goals and objective of the NBHCP. If it is determined that adequate connectivity is not being maintained within the Basin, then the Land Use Agencies’ incidental take permits will be at risk. Under such circumstances, the Land Use Agencies would be obligated to provide TNBC with the means to maintain adequate connectivity, possibly through increasing the NBHCP Mitigation fee, seeking outside funding sources to enhance connectivity between TNBC reserves, or other strategies available to the Land Use Agencies.

With regard to basin-wide connectivity, RD 1000 has identified key drainage channels (see Figure 17) that provide the backbone drainage system within the Basin and would be retained regardless of urban development. Urban development in the Natomas Basin relies on the system of canals for flood protection NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-10
April 2003
and to convey storm water runoff to the rivers. As evidenced on Figure 17, the channels of RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual are extensive throughout the Natomas Basin. The combination of primary drainage channels (drainage channels anticipated to remain through the term of the Permits), secondary drainage channels (which tend to remain unless affected by urban development), and irrigation channels provide substantial connectivity between the existing TNBC reserves. The system of canals identified on Figure 17, is anticipated to remain to serve both approved urban development and also provide the backbone of canal connections between reserves. In addition to the primary drainage structures identified on Figure 17, the one-mile wide Swainson’s Hawk Zone has been excluded from the Sutter County Permit Area. This land will remain undeveloped until such time as the County addresses impacts to listed species. As such, this land is anticipated to remain available for purposes of biological connectivity. In addition to the major canal within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone that is identified on Figure 17, there are numerous lesser canals operated by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual, as well as lesser irrigation canals operated by individual farmers.

Therefore, it is anticipated that this area will continue to provide connectivity between present and future reserves located in Sacramento and Sutter Counties.

As noted above, any substantial change to the connectivity of reserves that would affect Covered Species will be considered by the TNBC Board and TAC and Adaptive Management strategies, or longer term channel control strategies such as MOA’s, MOU’s, and easements will be considered and implemented as feasible and appropriate to ensure connectivity is maintained. This decrease in connectivity is considered a relatively remote circumstance since the system of canals identified in Figure 17 are essential for flood control and drainage in the Basin.

In addition to the channel connectivity described above, TNBC will consolidate reserve acquisitions during the fifty (50) year life of the permits in order to build larger blocks of habitat reserve lands. Minimum requirements for reserve sizes are discussed below. The connectivity promoted through TNBC acquisitions will reduce isolation of habitat reserves, thereby increasing the long-term viability of wildlife populations within the Natomas Basin.

In addition to promoting connectivity between reserves and surrounding agriculture, the Land Use Agencies, through their adopted general plans, community plans, and specific plans, will promote compact urban development within limited portions of the Natomas Basin. The boundaries of City of Sacramento and Metro Air Park development are clearly defined and well consolidated. Urban development within Sutter County will be limited to the Industrial/Commercial Reserve (exclusive of that portion of the Industrial/Commercial Reserve within the SHZ), an area totaling 8,575 acres within the Natomas Basin.

A total of 7,467 acres of development is allowed within this area under the NBHCP, leaving 1,100 acres within the Industrial/Commercial Reserve with no take coverage under the NBHCP. Because of the cost of constructing and extending facilities and roads, development in Sutter County will be consolidated and will follow the footprint of the Permit Area shown for Sutter County. Additionally, during Sutter County’s Mid-Point Review, development patterns shall be analyzed to determine whether the remainder 1,100 acres of habitat within the Industrial/Commercial Reserve is becoming fragmented.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-11
April 2003
Additional connectivity review measures shall include Plan Operator approval to grant access across reserve lands for canal modification unless the authority for such access already exists. The Plan Operator’s approval of any canal modification on Mitigation Lands will be contingent upon Wildlife Agency review.

While the NBHCP allows for the participation of the Water Agencies, such participation is not anticipated until outstanding issues affecting the Water Agencies are resolved. Because the NBHCP does not contemplate coverage for canal closure or substantially modified canal management guidelines for the Water Agencies, whether or not the Water Agency participates in the NBHCP will not substantially affect connectivity between TNBC reserves.
e. Foraging Habitat
The NBHCP Operating Conservation Program provides avoidance, take minimization and mitigation for impacts to Covered Species. An underlying assumption of the NBHCP is that the system of reserves comprising the Mitigation Lands, in conjunction with foraging opportunities within the general area, will provide for the long-term viability of Covered Species within the Natomas Basin. While these additional foraging areas will not be under the control of TNBC, are not mitigation included in the NBHCP, and the Land Use Agency Permittees have limited control over the use of such lands, the presence of foraging lands outside of TNBC reserves supports various Covered Species, in particular, the Swainson’s hawk.

Analysis of the effectiveness of the NBHCP is based on the assumption that some portion of the existing foraging habitat would remain outside of the Permit Areas as development occurs under the NBHCP. This assumption is based on the following historic land use patterns, adopted general plans and policies, state and Federal regulations and provisions of the NBHCP:

1. Outside of the Permit Areas, limited changes to existing land uses are allowed by right, including development of individual homes on existing agricultural parcels (e.g., 1 dwelling unit on 40-acre parcels). Based on data available as of 2002, historic land use patterns indicate that approximately 377 acres within the entire 53,537 acres of the Basin are in rural residential uses. Substantial increases in this type of land use are not anticipated over the life of the NBHCP due to (a) the limited amount of such development which has occurred historically in the Basin, (b) the County of Sutter and the County of Sacramento General Plan and zoning designations limiting most land to agricultural and open space uses, (c) the large parcel sizes of Basin land outside of the Permit Areas, and (d) limitations on the provision of water and sewer services to areas located outside of the Sacramento County Urban Services Boundary and the City of Sacramento Sphere of Influence.

2. Under the adopted land use plans and policies, extensive analysis and amendments to the adopted plans and policies would be required prior to the approval of urban development outside of the Permit Areas. If such changes in land use were to occur during the 50-year life of the NBHCP, NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-12
April 2003
conversion of Basin lands from agricultural and open space uses to urban uses, beyond the 17,500 acres of Planned Development and outside the Permit Areas, very likely would only result from the expansion of Sacramento International Airport, expanded development by the City or Sutter beyond the NBHCP Planned Development, or other urban development within Sacramento County. Expansion of the airport would require amendments to the Airport Master Plan, as well as local and federal approvals. Conversion of undeveloped lands to urban development within the remaining Sacramento County or the City of Sacramento portions of the Basin outside the Permit Areas would require either expansion of the City’s Sphere of Influence or adjustments to the County’s Urban Services Boundary, approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission, general plan amendments, rezoning, and changes in policies regarding the provision of services.

Urban development within Sutter County beyond the NBHCP Authorized Development or outside the Sutter Permit Area also would trigger general plan amendments, specific plans, and rezoning.

3. Under the provisions of the NBHCP, neither the City or Sutter County may approve any urban development beyond the Authorized Development until the applicable Permittee conducts an evaluation of the effects of the additional development on the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program, and the City’s or the County’s permit is amended to include the new areas or a new permit is issued for such additional areas. If such development is proposed and take associated with this development is authorized through either amended or new incidental take permits, the mitigation requirements applied to the additional development may vary from those established under the NBHCP. However, authorization of such additional development under a permit amendment or new permit would not alter the mitigation requirements established for the 15,517 acres of Authorized Development addressed under this NBHCP.

4. Discretionary actions including the actions described in Item 2, above which are required for the approval of major urban development by the City of Sacramento, the County of Sutter or the County of Sacramento are subject to review under CEQA. In accordance with CEQA, such analysis would consider both the effects of the actions on federal and state-listed species and the effects of the actions on the effectiveness of the NBHCP.

5. In the event Sacramento County proposes to expand the Sacramento International Airport, such actions would be subject to Section 7 review under the ESA, CESA compliance, and CEQA and NEPA analyses. As part of these reviews, Sacramento County would be required to evaluate the effects of such activities on state and federally-listed species and the NBHCP.

Notwithstanding the above discussion, in the 50-year term of the NBHCP and ITPs, it is possible that changes in the existing land uses outside the Permit Areas and within the Basin could occur over time that could impact foraging habitat anticipated under the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program.

Analysis completed for the NBHCP determined that 9,188 acres of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat would be impacted by take authorized under the Natomas and MAP ITPs. Under the two HCP’s, 3,372 acres of high and moderate quality upland habitat would be provided within TNBC Mitigation Land NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-13
April 2003
reserves. Additionally, Sutter County’s Permit Area specifically excludes 1,015 acres of the Sutter Industrial/Commercial Reserve and the County will process a general plan amendment to redesignate this land to Agriculture. This 4,387 acres of Mitigation Land and avoidance of Sutter urban development impacts, in conjunction with nesting and foraging habitat retained in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, and the NBHCP’s avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, fully mitigates the impacts of take of foraging habitat resulting from Planned Development. In addition to the 4,387 acres affected by the NBHCP, additional lands within and directly adjacent to the Plan Area are anticipated to continue to provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk, as described in Table IV-2.

TABLE IV-2

AVAILABLE FORAGING OPPORTUNITIES
Within Basin & TNBC Permit Area Acreage
Available Foraging Provided Under NBHCP 4,387
Other Lands Available for Foraging Within Sutter County1 3,632 Other Lands Available for Foraging Within Sacramento County2 10,756 1 Includes Triangle Parcel, levee slopes, and agricultural zoned lands 2 Includes agricultural zoned lands, airport buffer lands, Sacramento County portion of Swainson Hawk’s zone Although the existing baseline foraging habitat is not considered mitigation under the NBHCP, the NBHCP adaptive management program is designed to respond to changes in baseline habitat which could occur if existing undeveloped lands in the Basin were converted to urban uses. As part of the Overall NBHCP Program Review and the Independent Program Reviews (see NBHCP Sections VI.I and VI.J), a general evaluation of Basin land uses will be conducted to determine whether amendments to adopted General Plan land use designations, master plan amendments, specific plan adoption or amendments, or rezonings to allow urban land uses outside the Permit Areas have the potential to adversely affect the NBHCP Operating Conservation Plan. In the event that foraging opportunities, as identified in Table IV-2, are converted to urban uses without adequate provisions to maintain foraging habitat, such that the effectiveness of the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program is potentially compromised, the City and Sutter County would consider and TNBC, on behalf of the City and Sutter, would implement appropriate actions, including the following or similar measures:

1. Modification of acquisition criteria to adjust for impacts to foraging habitat outside of reserves.

2. Substitution of reserve sites that have not been restored and are impacted by substantial land use changes, with replacement reserve sites that would provide improved foraging habitat opportunities.

3. Modification of the percentages of the habitat types comprising the TNBC reserve sites. Such modifications would be applied prospectively to future TNBC acquisitions and would not affect existing, improved TNBC reserves.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-14
April 2003

4. Pursuit of outside funding sources, including private, state and Federal grants, to acquire, improve and manage additional TNBC reserves that would maintain Basin foraging lands. TNBC would be responsible for preparing grant applications or undertaking other actions, as necessary, to secure these funds. Such programs would supplement the Mitigation Fees required by the NBHCP and would not be used to fund NBHCP mitigation obligations. Lack of outside funding would not preclude the City and Sutter County’s obligation to implement appropriate action consistent with this provision and their respective obligations under the NBHCP. f. 2,500-Acre/400-Acre Minimum Habitat Block Size Requirements In order to ensure adequately sized reserves that will support long-term viability of Covered Species, the NBHCP requires that by the end of the 50 year permits, one habitat block within the reserve system shall be a minimum of 2,500 acres in size and the balance of reserve lands shall be in habitat blocks that are a minimum of 400 acres in size. It must be understood that these are minimum sizes of reserve land holdings which will be acquired over time. Also, TNBC with the approval of the Wildlife Agencies, may acquire properties smaller than 400 acres in size where biological resources merit such acquisitions.

TNBC will always have the flexibility to buy land in smaller blocks in order to eventually build up its land holdings to the required sizes by the end of 50 years. In addition, at times TNBC may determine that smaller reserves have biological significance and should be preserved. Moreover, TNBC will be able to sell or lease land in order to accomplish this minimum block requirement and other goals of the plan.

Based upon the recent progress of TNBC in acquiring contiguous properties for the establishment of habitat reserves, the City and Sutter County anticipate successfully meeting the NBHCP minimum size objectives for reserve land acquisition within 50 years. Within the western portion of the Natomas Basin in Sutter County, TNBC now holds three contiguous properties and two nearby contiguous properties that total 1,071.6 acres.

After development of reserves and analysis of the function of reserves less than 400 acres in size, compelling evidence in support of reserves less than 400 acres in size may be discovered. In such cases, it would not be the intent of the NBHCP to sacrifice high quality sites of less than 400 acres in size in order to develop larger, but less biologically valuable, reserve sites.

Basis for the 2,500 Acre / 400 Acre Reserves Sizes: The basis for the 400 acres minimum block and 2,500 acre reserve block size is: 1) large blocks minimize the “perimeter effect,” 2) large blocks promote biodiversity by allowing multiple species and niches to occupy the site, and 3) the benefit to genetic diversity of dispersing interconnected reserves throughout the Natomas Basin, and 4) the 400 acre reserve size is considered the minimum size to allow persistence of Covered Species.

The large block reserve site results in less perimeter relative to the area of the site. A lower ratio of perimeter to area is an advantage because it reduces the potential incompatible interface between the NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-15
April 2003
reserve site and surrounding land uses. The information below shows the perimeter/ area ratio for three differently sized reserve sites:

Reserve Size (acres) Perimeter (lin. ft.) Area (acres) Perimeter/Area Ratio 10 2,640 10 264 : 1
400 16,697 400 42 : 1
2,500 41,744 2,500 17 : 1
The larger reserve block results in more biodiversity on the site. A mosaic of habitats can be created on a reserve site which supplies more habitat types than a monoculture of habitat. The mosaic of habitat types encourages more types of species to fill the greater number of niches provided on site. A larger block also provides more efficient management, improved monitoring and an overall economy of scale. This reduced cost of management can be used for additional enhancement and adaptive management on the reserves.

The 400 acre blocks of reserves interconnected by waterways and dispersed throughout the Basin are beneficial to the reserve system because such a system allows for greater genetic intermixing of subpopulations, particularly amongst giant garter snake sub-populations. This system of interconnected waterways, operated by RD1000 and Natomas Mutual, will provide irrigation water delivery and flood control throughout the Basin, thereby providing connectivity between TNBC reserves.

Review of Progress on 2,500 Acre / 400 Acre Reserve Sizes: Notwithstanding TNBC’s success in the Natomas Basin to date, in order to further ensure that the 2,500 acre reserve objective and the 400 acre minimum reserve size objective are met, the City of Sacramento and Sutter County will each conduct an Independent Mid-Point Review to verify that appropriate progress is achieved in meeting the reserve size objectives. Additionally, an Overall Program Review is required once approval for 9,000 acres of Authorized Development under the NBHCP has been granted by the Land Use Agencies. The timing of these program reviews is discussed in Sections VI.I and VI.J.

2. Reserve Acquisition Guidelines and Criteria
Described below are criteria that TNBC and the NBHCP TAC shall consider when evaluating potential reserve acquisitions.
a. Setbacks Adjacent to Reserve Lands
Setback zones shall be considered prior to the acquisition of reserve lands. The purpose of the setback requirement is to minimize the impacts of conflicts of reserve lands and nearby existing development or lands that are designated for urban development by one of the Land Use Agencies on one another. The setback zone functions as a limitation on where reserve lands can be located. However, the NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-16
April 2003
reserve land setback zone does not affect the ability of each of the Land Use Agencies to approve development within the setback zone and adjacent to the boundaries of reserve lands.

Width of Setback Zone: All mitigation lands acquired by TNBC or for which conservation easements are obtained shall, at the time of acquisition and with the exceptions described below, be situated a minimum of 800 feet from existing urban lands or lands that are designated for urban uses in an adopted general plan. For purposes of this provision, "existing urban lands" means lands that are intensively or completely developed for urban, commercial, or residential uses or are adjacent to or within the immediate vicinity of intensively developed areas, such that the direct and indirect effects of such development are significantly incompatible with the objectives and purposes of the reserve system and would be likely to have significant adverse effects on reserve viability or on Covered Species inhabiting the reserve lands.

Lands that are located within either the City of Sacramento’s or Sutter County’s Permit Area shall not be acquired or accepted as TNBC Mitigation Lands without the prior review and approval by the decision making body of the Land Use Agency Permittee within which the proposed Mitigation Land is located.

Exception: 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) NBHCP's Technical Advisory Committee, 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. For example, the reserve site acquired by TNBC on the west side of Fisherman’s Lake was acquired because the high quality of the site warranted the acquisition, in spite of the less than 800 foot setback from designated urban lands. If TNBC proposes to establish all or part of the 800-foot setback on TNBC mitigation land (that is, the setback would be part of the reserve system), the USFWS and CDFG must review the status and adequacy of the area as mitigation land on a case-by-case basis and approve any such decision or purchase in writing. If TNBC proposes an acquisition that would result in a setback of less than 800-feet from urban development and the USFWS and CDFG approve such an acquisition, then the rationale for decisions about setback distances shall be included in the management plan(s) for any given parcel or block of reserve land.

Use of Setback Zone Land: Lands in the 800 foot setback zone between urban development and reserve areas should be in agriculture or another open-space or non-urban use. However, such lands will not likely be under the control of TNBC and will not count as mitigation land. The purpose of the 800-foot setback requirement is to ensure that reserve lands, to the maximum extent practicable, are not established near or adjacent to existing or reasonably foreseeable incompatible urban land uses. The setback standard is also intended not to impose an obligation on TNBC or the owners of the setback lands to manage such lands in any particular fashion. Thus, it is the responsibility of TNBC to locate reserve lands sufficiently far from urban areas or from lands designated for urban uses to fulfill this requirement; however, the setback requirement applies only to land acquisition by TNBC and is not to be construed as a land use restriction on privately owned land within 800 feet of any land within the NBHCP reserve system.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-17
April 2003
Review of Setbacks: The status and adequacy of the setback criteria will be reviewed and, where necessary and appropriate as determined by the USFWS and CDFG amended or corrected during the individual Permittees’ (City of Sacramento and Sutter County) Independent Mid-Point Reviews and the NBHCP 9,000-acre Overall Program Review described in Section VI.I. and J. for future reserve acquisitions.
b. Out-of-Basin Reserves
Most mitigation lands under the NBHCP will be situated inside the Natomas Basin. However, the Plan recognizes one potential out-of-Basin mitigation area, shown in Figure 20, Out-of-Basin Mitigation Area. Area "B" is a 60,000-acre area of agricultural land, north of the Basin within Sutter County. While the overall habitat values and presence of Covered Species within Area B are not as will documented as within the interior of the Natomas Basin, giant garter snake presence has been confirmed in Area B. Area "B" is not within the Permit Area of Sutter County; thus, incidental take of Covered Species resulting from development in this area would not be covered by the Sutter County’s ITP’s. However, any take associated with management and habitat enhancement conducted by TNBC in reserve areas within Area "B" would be covered by the TNBC permits (see Section V.A).

Under the NBHCP, up to 20 percent of the reserve lands may be established in Area "B," if approved in writing by USFWS and CDFG based on available scientific information that a reserve of adequate size, viability, and habitat value can be established in this area and can support a population of giant garter snakes, Swainson’s hawk and/or other Covered Species. Acquisition of reserve lands in Area "B" may occur if: (1) the NBHCP Technical Advisory Committee, including its USFWS and CDFG representatives, concur unanimously in a decision to acquire reserve lands in Area "B" and the reasons for such decision are clearly documented in the TNBC's administrative record; or (2) if not unanimous, TNBC submits a proposal for such an acquisition in writing to the USFWS and CDFG, together with an explanation of how and why the acquisition would benefit the NBHCP’s reserve system and be consistent with reserve system and overall Plan goals and objectives, and the USFWS and CDFG concur with the acquisition in writing. Generally, the NBHCP assumes that flood bypass areas or other areas in Area "B" that experience deep flooding will not be acceptable as mitigation lands unless they are specially managed to meet giant garter snake needs.

Area B Acquisition Criteria
The purpose of allowing out-of-Basin reserves is to provide an alternative method for achieving the NBHCP reserve objectives that preserve suitable habitat with high habitat values, that reduces the impact of TNBC acquisitions on continuing farming in the Basin, and that allows acquisition of potentially lower cost lands that support the goals and objectives of the NBHCP. At a minimum, such acquisitions must be consistent with the NBHCP’s Conservation Strategies (see above, Section IV.C.1), reserve acquisition criteria (see Section IV.C.2), and provide clear benefits to the Covered Species of the NBHCP.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-18
April 2003
In reviewing Area B acquisitions, the Wildlife Agencies shall consider the effect of acquiring out-of- Basin reserves on the viability of Covered Species populations within the Basin.

In addition to the value of proposed acquisition lands in meeting the biological goals and objectives of the NBHCP, the following factors shall be taken into consideration should TNBC seek to pursue or acquire lands in Area B:
(1) To preserve a balance, no more than 20% of the total reserve system at any given time shall be located in Area B.
(2) Area B sites may be considered and purchased when market conditions in the Natomas Basin serve as a limiting factor to successful, timely and cost effective land acquisitions in the Basin. For example, if there is a limited inventory of available land (willing seller at a reasonable price) within the basin, and/or such parcels have limited habitat value or do not meet major portions of the reserve acquisition criteria and goals, then the TNBC Board may seek acquisition of parcels in Area B.
(3) Specific circumstances under which Area B acquisitions might be appropriate include land costs for appropriate land within the Basin that are in excess of the established fair market land acquisition price established in the latest NBHCP Fee Report, or inability to conclude transactions within a reasonable time frame (approximately 6 months of initiation of negotiations).

If out-of-Basin reserve lands are acquired in Area "B" as described above, TNBC shall be responsible for managing such lands in accordance with Section IV.D below, unless: (1) another reliable, willing reserve manager for such lands is located; (2) management of such lands by another land manager is consistent with all applicable conditions of the NBHCP; and (3) such land manager continues to be subject to and to act under the direct control of TNBC; and (4) delegation of management authority to such a reserve manager is authorized by the USFWS and CDFG in writing and through revision of the NBHCP and Implementation Agreement if necessary. If TNBC desires to delegate ownership or management of any reserve lands to a third party without retaining direct control over such third party, then, in addition to the measures identified in (4) above, such delegation must be processed as an amendment to TNBC’s permits and the third party must obtain separate incidental take permits.

The purpose of allowing out-of-Basin reserves is to provide an alternative method for achieving the NBHCP reserve objectives, to reduce the potential cost of establishing reserve areas by allowing acquisition of potentially lower-cost land that supports suitable habitat with high habitat values, and to reduce the impact of TNBC acquisitions on continuing farming in the Basin. However, at a minimum, such acquisitions must be consistent with the NBHCP's Conservation Strategies (see above, Section IV.C.1), reserve acquisition criteria (see Section IV.C.2), and provide clear benefit to the Covered Species of the Natomas Basin.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-19
April 2003
In summary, it is currently expected that at least 80 percent of the NBHCP’s reserve lands will be established within the Natomas Basin, and up to 20 percent of the total mitigation lands required by the Plan may be acquired out-of-Basin pursuant to compliance with the criteria established above. c. Mitigation of Effects Related to Sale or Transfer of Habitat Mitigation Reserve Sites (1) Requirement to Mitigate Impacts Resulting from Real Estate, Right of Way or Other Acquisitions or Uses Affecting TNBC Lands. In the event public works projects or other projects require acquisition of mitigation lands operated by the TNBC, the sponsor of such activity shall be required to mitigate the impacts to the reserve system. At a minimum, the sponsor of such activities shall pay for the value of replacing every acre of reserve land impacted, and may be required to also pay for direct and indirect impacts related to the established (existing, enhanced, or restored) habitat value on the land. In addition to compensating TNBC for lost habitat reserves, such an agency shall also provide mitigation as determined appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the project that necessitated the elimination of the Mitigation Lands reserve. Such additional mitigation may include payment of the NBHCP Mitigation Fee and implementation of appropriate measures to avoid and minimize take of Covered Species. This provision for example, may apply to an agency that is requiring rights of way on TNBC lands or other activities that result in the sale or loss of reserve lands for public necessity.
(2) Requirement to Compensate for Habitat Value in the Event of Sale or Trade of a TNBC Reserve Site. In the event the TNBC Board of Directors decides to voluntarily sell or trade a Mitigation Lands reserve site, the TNBC Board shall ensure that the terms of the sale or trade include coverage for the costs or value of replacing each acre of Mitigation Lands impacted, and estimated direct and indirect impacts related to the established (existing, enhanced or restored) habitat value on the land. In the event a TNBC reserve is sold or transferred for purposes of urban development within the Permit Area(s) of the NBHCP, the developer shall also comply with the obligations of the NBHCP, including but not limited to payment of the Mitigation Fee and implementation of applicable measures specified in Chapters IV and V of the NBHCP.
d. Overall Acquisition Criteria
TNBC will apply the following criteria when evaluating potential reserve acquisitions. Additional criteria for primarily wetland reserves and primarily upland reserves are provided in the following sections.

Prior to acquiring Mitigation Land, TNBC shall conduct a Pre-Acquisition field reconnaissance to determine the suitability of the proposed site as habitat for Covered Species and the type of habitat and associated species present on the site. This will be an overview assessment and not a full biological assessment. The purpose of this survey is to determine the potential and/or limiting factors for establishment fo habitat for Covered Species.
(1) The NBHCP provides for a general division of habitat types within TNBC’s system of reserves as follows: 25% managed marsh; 50% rice production; and, 25% upland habitat.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-20
April 2003
The percentages described herein apply to the entire TNBC system of reserves and percentages within individual reserves will vary from the percentages described above.

While percentages of land use types within individual reserves will vary based on site- specific conditions, the reserve system will generally contain a combination of appropriate habitats that reflect characteristics of the reserve site. For example, a reserve site may be appropriate for upland habitat and not suited to rice production or managed marsh.

Therefore, a TNBC reserve site could contain only upland habitat and no managed marsh or rice production. Alternatively, a reserve may consist entirely of rice, or may be primarily marsh with a small percentage of upland habitat.
(2) 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 include groundwater if a groundwater well or wells exist on the property and that such wells can meet acceptable water quantity and quality needs. (3) Land is capable of supporting appropriate agricultural cultivation in conjunction with either wetland or upland habitat reserve.
(4) 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.
(5) Upland or wetland specific criteria, as described in the following sections, will be applied as determined appropriate by TNBC in consultation with the TAC. (6) Land is adequately removed from incompatible urban development or uses (see Section IV.C.2.a. above).
(7) Habitat reserves will be established by TNBC in consultation with the TAC. Prior to purchase, all lands being considered for acquisition will be submitted to USFWS and CDFG for review and concurrence; such concurrence will be required before any land acquisitions are completed. However, formal USFWS and CDFG concurrence may be waived, provided that NBHCP’s TAC, including the USFWS and CDFG representatives, unanimously concur in the proposed acquisition and that documentation of such concurrence is placed into TNBC’s administrative record. If, however, there is not TAC concurrence and the TNBC’s Board of Directors approves an action pursuant to this section in a regular, noticed meeting of the Board, then following the 60th day after TNBC has notified CDFG and USFWS of the proposed action, in writing by CDFG or USFWS, it is approved unless denied in writing by CDFG and USFWS .

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-21
April 2003

3. Conservation Strategy for Wetland Habitat as Mitigation for Urban Development a. Establishment and Management of Wetland Habitats
Wetland reserves are intended to provide for the long-term protection of existing and potential wetland species populations in the Basin, including the giant garter snake. In most cases, wetland reserves established for the giant garter snake will also be planned to benefit other wetland-associated Covered Species, including a range of wetland associated species such as tricolored blackbird, northwestern pond turtle and Delta tule pea. Consequently, selection of wetland reserve sites will usually focus on the needs of the giant garter snake, except in cases where, in the judgement of TNBC and the Technical Advisory Committee, specific or important needs of other wetland-associated species can be met at sites not selected primarily for giant garter snake.

A primary goal of the NBHCP is to create a system of reserves, with wetland habitats and associated uplands, that would support populations of the giant garter snake and other Covered Species which co-exist with the garter snake in the same habitat.

Generally habitat which supports the giant garter
snake will also be of habitat value to other associated wetland species. For example, the wetland reserve management policies are designed to ensure that a water regime which provides for inundation of wetland areas to support the needs of multiple species including spring and summer inundations to support the giant garter snake, and other Covered Species that are aquatic breeders (California tiger salamander). Seasonal inundations in the fall will support waterfowl such as the Aleutian Canada goose. The wetland reserve criteria also includes upland areas within marshes for cover and hibernicula needed for a number of covered wetland species including the giant garter snake, the western pond turtle and others. Upland areas of marsh will also be designed to support habitat for the tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike.

Each Site Specific Management Plan will consider the optimal reserve restoration and management regime to support the wetland associated covered species.
b. Wetland Reserve Acquisition Criteria/Methodology
The following guidelines will be used to identify lands for wetland reserve area acquisition (see Section C.3.e below for additional reserve acquisition criteria for rice fields):
(1) 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.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-22
April 2003
(2) Land contains soils that can support rice farming or the type of managed marsh wetlands proposed in the Plan (see Section IV.C.3.d. below).
(3) 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.
(4) Lands selected to provide for the NBHCP wetland habitat system shall be situated outside areas known to regularly receive deep flood waters (e.g., the Yolo and Sutter Bypasses).

They shall also be situated so that they do not directly receive runoff from paved surfaces or inflow from urban storm water drainage systems.
c. Protection from Flooding
Flood water can destroy giant garter snake underground retreats by (1) liquefying the fine clay-silt substrate, allowing tunnels to collapse; (2) saturating the substrate with water, allowing the soil to swell and thus eliminating deep cracks that had been created by shrinking during a previous drying of the soil; (3) exposing slopes lying below the high water mark to the erosive force of wave action; and (4) depositing silt that blankets substrate surfaces and covers any underground retreats that survive (1), (2), and (3).

While giant garter snakes can survive being flooded from underground retreats (Glenn Wylie, BRD, pers. comm.), such disruptive events are not advantageous either to garter snakes or to management of wetland reserves under the NBHCP.

The drainage regime for managed wetlands or rice fields inside the reserve system shall be designed to ensure that giant garter snake retreats are not inundated when water is drained from ditches, fields, canals or wetland areas. It is also desirable to locate upland habitats inside the wetland reserve system to avoid flooding of winter retreats.
d. Managed Marsh Design/Management
The NBHCP recognizes the wildlife values for many Covered Species associated with natural marsh and managed marsh areas as well as rice fields and seeks to protect, restore, or create such areas through the NBHCP's conservation program. Management of rice fields is discussed in Section.IV.C.3.e below.

Section IV.C.2.c. above currently requires that at least 25% of the land acquired for the NBHCP reserve system be converted into managed marsh wetlands to enhance habitat values for the giant garter snake and other Covered Species. These managed marsh wetlands, together with associated uplands, rice NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-23
April 2003
fields, and water conveyance ditches and canals, are expected to form a mosaic of diverse wetland habitats in the wetland portion of the reserve system that will support giant garter snakes and other wetland associated species. Embedded within an agricultural landscape dominated by rice farming, managed marsh wetlands based on such biological principles should support giant garter snakes as well as many other Covered Species (e.g., white-faced ibis, tricolored blackbird, and northwestern pond turtle).

The specific locations where TNBC will develop managed marsh habitat are not identified in the NBHCP. Such lands will be identified by TNBC as the NBHCP is implemented, and site-specific management and monitoring plans for each managed marsh area will be developed when the site is acquired. When TNBC proposes to acquire a particular land parcel as mitigation, it will submit the proposal to the USFWS and CDFG for review and approval. Development of specific management and monitoring plans for managed marshes and other mitigation lands is discussed in Section IV.D below.

Similarly, the NBHCP does not provide site-specific prescriptions for marsh design and management, but outlines the basic habitat elements needed for managed marshes within the Plan's reserve system to support giant garter snakes and other Covered Species. It is important that these marsh elements, including the water regime and physical structure, are consistent with giant garter snake biology and that, to the extent known, they mimic relevant features of the original marsh complexes of the Central Valley where the giant garter snake evolved, or the rice culture ecosystem that currently supports the snake.

These features include, but are not limited to: (1) summer dry-down of seasonal marsh; (2) availability of summer water either as pockets of deeper water that persist in the seasonal marsh or as permanent marsh, located near or adjacent to vegetated banks or suitable upland habitat; (3) open water channels in marsh habitat to provide movement corridors and foraging edge; (4) availability of abundant emergent vegetation and near shore habitat; (5) a good food supply; and (6) availability of diverse habitat elements.

The following describes these managed marsh components and other factors in more detail. Note, however, that the following descriptions for managed marsh design under the NBHCP (including water management and marsh configuration) may be modified throughout the life of the Plan according to its Adaptive Management provisions (see Section VI.F). Marsh management plans will be developed in accordance with Section IV.D below.

Water Regime: The NBHCP's wetland reserves may consist of two types of managed marsh wetlands--seasonal wetlands or permanent wetlands. As its name implies, the first type is flooded seasonally to accomplish a variety of purposes, including benefits to wildlife and vegetation management.

The season when such wetlands are flooded depends on the wildlife species being targeted (e.g., spring and summer for giant garter snakes; winter for waterfowl). Though seasonal marsh may have pockets of permanent water as described below, these are the result of deep water areas that are nevertheless within the seasonal wetland, and are therefore considered separately from permanent marsh. Permanent marsh retains water year round.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-24
April 2003
Seasonal managed marshes will be flooded by about mid-April (if not flooded during the winter) so that water and prey are available when giant garter snakes emerge from winter retreats. Water will be maintained within the managed marsh during the period when rice fields dry down (approximately mid- August). This irrigation regime is intended to provide alternative habitat to GGS as rice fields are drained and concentrate giant garter snake prey species from rice field into canals and managed marshes.

Giant garter snakes are also known to use areas of permanent marsh habitat at Gilsizer Slough, Cosumnes River Preserve and on the Sacramento NWR complex, as well as permanent marsh along Fisherman’s Lake in the Natomas Basin. It is considered advantageous to include within the NBHCP's wetland reserve system some areas of permanent marshes and sloughs interspersed with the seasonal marshes, rice fields, and uplands. This will increase the overall habitat diversity of the reserves for the giant garter snake as well as other Covered Species.

Uplands: While a portion of the terrestrial component of the managed marsh system will be designed to meet the buffer requirements of the NBHCP, the rest will be designed and managed to meet the needs of giant garter snakes and other upland Covered Species.

The specific proportion of wetland to upland habitat within a given managed marsh will be determined by TNBC in consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee pursuant to the provisions described in Sections IV.D below. However, a typical proportion for upland habitats within the reserve system would be approximately 20 to 30 percent. Upland areas have several purposes: (1) providing basking and resting sites, escape cover and winter retreats for giant garter snakes; and (2) providing foraging and nesting areas for other Covered Species (e.g., loggerhead shrike, tricolored blackbird, burrowing owl, and Swainson's hawk). Upland areas intended to provide upland habitat for GGS under the NBHCP may consist of dryland pasture, grasslands, levees, and any other land use approved by NBHCP's Technical Advisory Committee.

Giant garter snakes that have been flooded in their winter retreats are subject to many forms of mortality, or may be killed directly by drowning. Therefore, uplands in and around the reserve's managed marshes will be designed so that a significant portion is above expected winter flood levels. They should also provide escape cover where the permanent pools of water described above may attract garter snakes as well as snake predators.

Water Conveyance Structures/Edge: Marsh design should include edge habitat to provide foraging and movement corridors for GGS and other Covered Species. Edge can be created by providing open water channels within marsh to provide open water/emergent vegetation interface. Upland/aquatic habitat interface may also provide edge habitat where sufficient vegetation is present to provide cover for giant garter snake.

Vegetation/Cover: Vegetation in a managed marsh should support a diversity of wildlife. Plant species that currently occur in the emergent marsh habitat found in the Natomas Basin will be included in NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-25
April 2003
the NBHCP's managed marsh wetlands. These include cattails (Typha latifolia), tules (Scirpus acutus), rushes (Juncus sp.), river bulrush (S. fluvialtilis), sedges (Carex sp., Cyperus sp.), and vervain (Verbena hastata). Marsh edges and "islands" should be well-vegetated with plants that discourage the movement of garter snake predators, such as herons, egrets, rats, and domestic animals. Plant species such as wildrose and thimbleberry are relatively impenetrable to many predator species but not to giant garter snakes and serve as basking sites for the snakes. For illustration purposes Figure 19 shows an example of a marsh cross section depicting the distribution of wetland plants in relation to flooding depth. This figure does not necessarily reflect a specific marsh design recommended by the NBHCP.

Exotic pest plants, such as giant reed grass and Johnson grass, can choke out native vegetation and have low habitat value. Such exotics will be periodically removed from the reserve system's managed marshes where feasible and necessary. Specific decisions about the need for exotic plant control shall be included in the management plan(s) for any given parcel or block of reserve land (see below, Section IV.D).

Garter snakes utilize a variety of sites for escape cover and winter retreats, including small mammal burrows, thick vegetation such as wildrose and thimbleberry, and areas of jumbled rock such as rip rap, chunks of rock, or broken concrete. Management of wetland reserves under the NBHCP shall thus include protection and/or construction of such types of giant garter snake cover and retreats as deemed appropriate by NBHCP Technical Advisory Committee.

Access: Road kills are believed to be a significant giant garter snake mortality factor, especially for males (see Chapter II). Consequently, new roads within acquired reserve lands will be constructed to the minimum extent necessary to provide for the adequate maintenance of the marshes and other reserve lands. If roads already exist in an area acquired as a reserve, access to these roads will be restricted as necessary to protect the reserves from unnecessary disturbance and as described in the reserve management plans.

Other Factors: Soils are an important factor in designing and constructing managed marshes because they dictate whether water will be retained or lost through percolation. Generally, only those lands within the Natomas Basin that are underlain by clay soils will be conducive to the development of levee constructed managed marshes. Managed marshes must also be kept clear of winter storm runoff coming directly from urban areas. In addition, preserves cannot be used for any additional purpose for flood control or receive directly storm water or other off-site drainage from urban development. Pollutants such as petroleum compounds (e.g., motor oil) in urban runoff have been observed to cause respiratory and skin problems for the giant garter snake and may also reduce its food supply (George Hansen, pers. comm.). Water quality must also be maintained in order to maintain wildlife productivity and preclude the outbreak of wildlife diseases.

Water Control Structures: Managed marshes require a controlled source of good quality water at suitable depths, usually less than three feet (water depth is important to the establishment of appropriate NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-26
April 2003
vegetation). Management and enhancement of a managed marsh can be maximized through water control.

A variety of water manipulation approaches can be utilized, including levees, stoplog and screwgate water control structures to regulate water flows and depths, and dewatering systems. In fact, a dewatering system is as important to successful wetland management as a flooding system. Water manipulation can also contribute to control of exotic plants and other undesirable vegetation, wildlife diseases (such as botulism and cholera), non-native fish populations, etc.

Levees constructed on natural contours have been found to be more effective for marsh management than levees constructed across contours. Figure 19, Wetland Plant Depths and Levee Structures, provides examples of the dimensions of levees constructed for: (1) a permanent or semipermanent impoundment; (2) a seasonally flooded impoundment; (3) a header-ditch levee; and (4) a rice-dike levee.

Permanent or semipermanent impoundment levees will be used to create marsh which sets above the natural elevation of the land, much in the same way a bathtub holds water. Header-ditch levees are used along the upper elevation of a field or marsh to create the ditch or canal which brings water to the wetland. Water drops through control structures are then made through the header-ditch levee to the marsh or field. Rice-dike levees are used along natural contours in a rice field to back up water to flood the land. Depending upon the topography and the water conveyance and flooding regimes, TNBC will use a combination of these levee types to develop its marsh and rice wetlands.

Mosquito Control: Mosquito control programs operate throughout Natomas Basin. Generally, conventional mosquito control methods are compatible with garter snake habitat. Use of mosquito fish and low intensity pesticide applications would not directly threaten garter snakes or their habitat, and mosquito fish may actually serve as garter snake prey. However, mosquito control programs are more focused near urban areas, and the more intensive control methods there could harm giant garter snakes. If necessary TNBC should work directly with Mosquito Abatement Districts to determine suitable methods to resolve mosquito problems near urban areas in a manner consistent with the management of giant garter snake wetland habitats established under the NBHCP. The Site Specific Management Plans prepared for each wetland site shall identify appropriate types of mosquito control and shall also be coordinated as necessary with the Mosquito Abatement Districts.

Summary: In summary, the NBHCP wetland conservation strategy is designed to produce a net positive effect for giant garter snake in the Natomas Basin and to contribute to the recovery of the species.

In order to achieve this objective, reserve lands established under the NBHCP would consist of a combination of TNBC rice cultivation and managed marsh wetland habitat for giant garter snakes, comprised of a mosaic of habitat types with variations in topography and an abundance of edges within and between habitats. Managed marsh would include seasonal marshes with shallow and deep water configurations; some permanent marshes; and upland habitats in the form of buffers, higher ground resembling the ditch banks, and levees of the Basin's water conveyance system, and "islands" scattered throughout the marshes wetland component. Permanent water features would be constructed so that they NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-27
April 2003
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. Natural marsh vegetation such as cattails, spike rush, tule clumps, wildrose and thimbleberry would be placed to maximize protected resting and basking sites and escape cover for the snakes.

Consistent with the NBHCP conservation strategy for giant garter snakes, Figure 18, Comparison of a Rice Field to a Managed Marsh, depicts for illustration purposes only, a rice field and a theoretical managed marsh design. As shown on this conceptual diagram, serpentine channels would be constructed throughout the marsh to increase channel habitat. The channels and open water areas would hold water during the summer dry-down, concentrating prey and providing surviving prey with overwintering habitat where water and aquatic invertebrates persist. Terrestrial habitat components, permanently above the flood level, would provide winter retreats as well as basking and resting sites for garter snakes.

Specific marsh designs may vary from the conceptual design illustrated in Figure 18. As explained above, specific marsh configuration and designs will be determined by TNBC in consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee and other species and restoration specialists as reserve system lands are acquired. Also, specific marsh designs will depend on the circumstances on parcels actually acquired, including the parcels' topography, location, relation to other habitats and land uses, and the presence of water conveyance systems. Preferred marsh designs under the NBHCP may change during the life of the Plan under its Adaptive Management procedures described in Section VI.F below.

In some cases, TNBC may be able to acquire an historical marsh area that has been degraded, but retains components of the original marsh, such as topography or plant communities. In such cases, the NBHCP encourages restoration of the historical marsh. Nevertheless, to the extent applicable, the same principles and factors of marsh design and management as described above will guide marsh restoration activities where such restoration opportunities can be found, either in the NBHCP Plan Area or in the out- of-Basin Area "B" as described above.
e. Management of Reserved Rice Lands for the Giant Garter Snake As explained in Chapter II, the rice growing areas of the Natomas Basin are known to support the giant garter snake (George Hansen, pers. comm.; Glenn Wylie, BRD, pers. comm.). For example, in its ongoing radio-telemetry studies, BRD has found that half of all garter snakes telemetered utilize rice fields at one time or another (Wylie, pers. comm.). The features of these rice lands that support garter snakes appear to include the rice fields themselves, the water conveyance system that supports the fields (including delivery canals, ditches, drains, and their associated levees) and other associated features, such as tailwater marshes. The reasons giant garter snakes persist in this man-made rice culture ecosystem, and why some fields support snakes while others do not, are not fully understood (G. Hansen, pers. comm.). However, it may be because the rice fields, together with their supporting infrastructure, mimic to some extent the area's original marsh and upland habitats. It may also be because the water regime in the rice fields (spring and summer flooding and fall dry-down) coincides fairly closely with the biological needs of the species.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-28
April 2003
The rice growing ecosystem also appears to provide many of the garter snake's basic habitat needs--e.g., warm, shallow water in the rice fields with sheltering emergent vegetation (e.g., rice plants); ditches and drains, some of which retain water year round and in which giant garter snake prey species (e.g., mosquito fish) can overwinter; and associated upland areas (e.g., levees) with suitable winter retreats.

In any case, the fact that giant garter snakes persist in the Natomas Basin's rice growing areas is well documented. The rice fields themselves support giant garter snakes through the active summer season, and the water conveyance systems that serve the rice fields support snakes throughout the year. The water conveyance systems in many parts of the Basin contain pockets of permanent water where prey such as bullfrog larvae and mosquito fish overwinter, resulting in high prey availability in the spring when snakes emerge from winter retreats and begin to use the aquatic components of the rice ecosystem. The late summer/early fall dry-down of the rice fields may be important by removing predatory fish large enough to prey on giant garter snakes, and because giant garter snake prey, which have been proliferating in the ditches, drains, and rice fields, may be concentrated in the remaining pockets of standing water where snakes can gorge prior to the period of winter inactivity.

What is known about the relationship between rice farming and giant garter snakes is summarized above and in Chapter II. Additional studies are needed to better understand giant garter snake habitat needs, why and under what conditions giant garter snake populations persist where rice is farmed, and what types of reserve management would best benefit this species. Where appropriate, the results of such studies will be incorporated into the NBHCP through the Plan's Adaptive Management provisions (see, Section VI.F). Nevertheless, the NBHCP recognizes that: (1) continued rice farming in the Natomas Basin supports the giant garter snake; and (2) that maintaining rice farming on a significant portion of acquired TNBC reserve lands is--unless otherwise indicated by the Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan (see Section VI.H.1), the Plan's Adaptive Management and Monitoring programs (Sections VI.F and G), other new scientific information, the individual Mid-Point Reviews, or the 9,000-acre Overall Program Review (Section VI.I)--an integral component of the overall conservation strategy.

With respect to the selection of rice fields for inclusion in the NBHCP reserve system, and subsequent management, the following criteria shall be applied:
(1) 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. (2) Rice fields located in areas designated to receive winter flood waters will be avoided (e.g., the Yolo and Sutter Bypasses).
(3) Rice fields in the NBHCP reserve system will be managed to maximize giant garter snake compatibility. This includes maintenance of rice checks, berms, and other water control structures in as natural a state as practicable maintenance of garter snake prey species (e.g., mosquito fish) in or near the rice fields through appropriate management, and other NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-29
April 2003
measures as appropriate. However, any such management will also, to the extent compatible with GGS conservation, be compatible with the needs of commercial rice production.

Specific measures for managing rice fields in the NBHCP's reserve system will be as determined by TNBC in consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee and as described in Reserve Management Plans (see below, Section IV.D).

4. Conservation Strategy for Upland Habitat as Mitigation for Urban Development a. Establishment and Management of Upland Habitat
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 listed in Table I-1. In most cases, upland reserves established and managed for the Swainson's hawk will also benefit other upland-associated 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 TNBC and the Technical Advisory Committee, specific or important needs of other upland-associated species can be met at sites not selected primarily for Swainson's hawks.
b. Upland Reserve Acquisition Criteria/Methodology
The NBHCP’s primary strategies to mitigate impacts to the Swainson's hawk caused by Authorized Development is are to avoid development in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone (within the City of Sacramento and Sutter County) and to acquire upland habitat as Mitigation Lands inside the Swainson’s Hawk Zone (see Figure 13). However, land outside the zone can be made attractive for the Swainson’s hawk through appropriate habitat design as specified elsewhere in the NBHCP and in consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee. These primary strategies will 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. Minimum foraging habitat needed for Swainson's hawk nesting sites can vary depending on prey availability and density, which is in part a function of vegetation cover type within the foraging habitat and the activities (management practices, agricultural activities, etc.) associated with that habitat and proximity to water and other green feed that supports a prey base (Wunder, 1992). The goal of these strategies is to maintain optimum nesting and foraging habitat for the hawks nesting in this zone by providing an abundant and available prey source. In order to optimize the use of the entire Natomas Basin by Swainson’s hawks, the Plan also calls for maintenance of nesting and foraging habitat for hawks nesting elsewhere in the Basin, as well as acquisition of reserve lands that benefit the other upland-associated species. In light of these considerations, upland reserve acquisition sites will be evaluated based upon the following criteria:

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-30
April 2003
(1) 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). (2) 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 NDDB or CDFG data and reports). (3) 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). (4) 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 walnut.
(5) Contiguity of upland reserve sites will be maximized. The Swainson's hawk conservation objectives in Chapter I direct TNBC 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. However, the value of edge habitat with wetlands will be considered in reserve design. (6) The land supports or has the potential to support other Covered Species which utilize upland habitat (see Tables I-1 and II-4).

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

5. Conservation Strategies for Vernal Pool Species as Mitigation for Urban Development 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 associated with vernal pools or other seasonal wetlands are proposed for incidental take coverage under the NBHCP’s incidental take permits, including three species of shrimp, five plant species and the western NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-31
April 2003
spadefoot toad and the California tiger salamander. While ten species associated with vernal pool habitats are covered by the NBHCP, only two of the species, vernal pool tadpole shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp, have been confirmed within the Natomas Basin.

The primary purpose of listing the vernal pool associated species within the NBHCP is to provide protection to TNBC with regard to the management of future wildlife reserves. It is anticipated that the complex of wetland/upland habitat to be developed by TNBC will provide enhanced opportunities for the establishment and proliferation of these species. In the event these species do benefit from TNBC’s efforts, it will be necessary to provide coverage to TNBC for activities that could result in incidental take of protected species.

As noted within this NBHCP, undisturbed areas of vernal pools within the Natomas Basin, as shown in Figures 9 - 11, Habitat Types Maps, are few and relatively small. Other vernal pools and seasonal wetlands that may support vernal pool species may occur throughout the Basin. These vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands may constitute jurisdictional wetlands under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) authorities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In order to ensure that vernal pools and their associated species are adequately protected on reserve lands, TNBC shall implement the following conservation strategies:
(1) TNBC shall consult with the TAC and California tiger salamander researchers and experts periodically during implementation of the Plan to determine what, if any, additional conservation opportunities for this species might exist within the Plan's proposed reserve system. 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) and, if appropriate, possible re-introduction of tiger salamanders into the Basin. Any conservation measures identified through this process, shall be incorporated, as appropriate, into the NBHCP’s conservation program through its Adaptive Management provisions.
(2) TNBC shall consult with the 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 proposed reserve system. Any conservation measures identified through this process, shall be incorporated, as appropriate, into the NBHCP’s conservation program through its Adaptive Management provisions.
(3) TNBC shall consult with the TAC and fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp experts periodically during implementation of the NBHCP to determine what, if any, additional conservation opportunities for Conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and midvalley fairy shrimp might exist within the proposed reserve system. Any conservation measures identified through this process, shall be NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-32
April 2003
incorporated, as appropriate, into the NBHCP’s conservation program through its Adaptive Management provisions.
(4) TNBC shall evaluate the potential for furthering the conservation of covered plant species within the NBHCP's vernal pool areas or its wetland 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 NBHCP Plan Area. Any conservation measures identified through this process, shall be incorporated, as appropriate, into the NBHCP’s conservation program through its Adaptive Management provisions.

D. RESERVE MANAGEMENT/SITE SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS
All land acquired for reserves under the NBHCP, whether it is controlled through easement or purchased outright, will require preservation, management, enhancement and/or restoration, and monitoring activities.

Following the mitigation land acquisition process, Site-Specific Management Plans (SSMPs) will be prepared for each reserve unit. Within the first year following reserve site acquisition, TNBC shall complete a biological assessment of the site, and shall prepare and submit to the TAC for their review and comment. Each SSMP shall be approved by the Wildlife Agencies prior to implementation. Each SSMP shall include a Biological Monitoring Plan for the site. SSMP’s can be simple or complex depending on the level of management necessary to provide or maintain habitat for the Covered Species. Each SSMP will specify: (1) management policies not otherwise prescribed by the NBHCP (see Section IV.D.1 below); (2) specific management activities, including establishment of suitable monitoring programs (see Section IV.D.2); (3) restoration and enhancement needs (see Section IV.D.3); and (4) reserve water management (see Section IV.D.4). TNBC will be responsible for preparing management plans for all reserve lands in consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee. Prior to implementation, each management plan will be submitted to the USFWS and CDFG for review, revision if appropriate, and written approval; however, formal USFWS and CDFG review of proposed management plans may be waived if all members of NBHCP's Technical Advisory Committee, including its USFWS and CDFG representatives, unanimously concur in the plan and documentation of such concurrence is placed into TNBC's administrative record. If TNBC’s Board of Directors approves an action pursuant to this section in a regular, noticed meeting of the Board, then after the 60th day TNBC has notified CDFG and USFWS of the proposed action, in writing, it is approved unless denied in writing by CDFG or USFWS. See Section 3.2.4 of the Implementation Agreement for further information on the development of reserve management plans.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-33
April 2003

1. Site-Specific Management Plan Policies
Once a block or parcel of mitigation land has been acquired, general goals for the land will be established and management activities will be guided by TNBC according to the policies set forth below.

Each SSMP will outline the policies under which the parcel will be managed, will describe the specific management activities that will be implemented, will specify the restoration and enhancement needs, and will define reserve water management. Management plans will be modified periodically as appropriate pursuant to NBHCP's Adaptive Management provisions to respond to changing conditions in the reserve areas and new scientific information. In cases where land purchased is added to an existing reserve area, policies or goals for the existing area may, if appropriate, be applied to the area of expansion. SSMP policy formulation will address the following issues:
a. Identification of Covered Species Present/Habitat Requirements Determination.

An existing Conditions Biological Assessment of newly acquired TNBC reserves will be conducted to determine the specific Covered Species the parcel currently supports or could potentially support. The results of this survey will be included in the SSMP for the subject Mitigation Land. The habitat type present or desired (e.g., wetlands or uplands) will also be a critical determination in establishing management policies. Management policies and activities will be oriented toward the species and habitats indicated or selected, and specific management policies established will be consistent with the needs of those species or habitats. Land parcels that are unsuitable for or are not expected to support any of the Covered Species will be eliminated from consideration through use of the mitigation site selection criteria described in Sections IV.C.2, C.3.b, and C.4.b above.
b. General Design/Management Criteria for Site Specific Management Plans The following design and management criteria shall be considered during the preparation, review and approval of Site Specific Management Plans for TNBC reserves:

Generally, public access to TNBC reserves shall be limited or regulated. Riparian and wetland areas are more valuable as wildlife habitat when they are located where human access is limited.

TNBC will protect the Covered Species and their habitat by limiting and regulating public assess to TNBC reserves. Reserves shall be patrolled to control prohibited and incompatible activities, including, but not limited to, dumping, off-road vehicle activity and trespass.

Site specific management plans shall address the habitat needs of all a maximum possible number of Covered Species, as determined feasible based upon the physical NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-34
April 2003
characteristics (topography, soil types, water availability, vegetation, etc.) of the individual reserve site under consideration..

Water bodies within habitat reserve units shall vary in size, depth and edge planting to provide varied habitat opportunities.

Plantings of native trees, including valley oak (Quercus lobata), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and willow (Salix goodingii) shall generally be incorporated within each habitat reserve unit as determined feasible by TNBC and in consultation with NBHCP TAC.
c. Appropriateness of Hunting.

Management plans will identify the level of hunting allowed, if any, and will include parcel-specific restrictions to protect the Covered Species during any hunting activities. No take of Covered Species as result of hunting will be covered under the permits.
d. Controlled/Prohibited Activities.

Activities that would potentially conflict with mitigation goals or would endanger habitat resources will be described and controlled or prohibited as necessary. Examples of activities that will typically be prohibited include dumping, vandalism, unauthorized hunting and fishing, collection of plants or animals, and off-road vehicle use.
e. Avoidance of Conflicts with the Sacramento International Airport.

It is imperative that reserve lands in the vicinity of the Sacramento International Airport be managed to avoid the potential for aircraft/bird collisions and other potential conflicts with airport operation. Reserve management plans must therefore be developed with these issues in mind. Draft management plans for reserve lands in the vicinity of the Sacramento Airport must be submitted to the Airport Facilities Manager to provide a reasonable opportunity for review and comment prior to approval by TNBC, the USFWS, or CDFG. See Section III.B.5. for a discussion of potential wildlife safety hazards near the airport, and Chapter VI for further discussion of reserve management/airport safety issues. f. Take Avoidance.

TNBC will implement take avoidance measures to minimize potential take that may occur during habitat creation, restoration, preservation, enhancement and management activities on Mitigation Lands (e.g., road kills, take during construction of managed marsh wetlands, etc.). To accomplish this, TNBC shall, where applicable, ensure that all take avoidance measures described in Chapter V (e.g., dewatering of irrigation ditches owned by TNBC) are implemented during preservation, restoration, creation, NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-35
April 2003
enhancement, management, and use of reserve lands. TNBC shall ensure that all such take avoidance measures as are necessary and appropriate are included in SSMPs.

2. Management Activities
The objectives of management activities conducted on Mitigation Lands generally will be to maintain and support applicable Covered Species over the long term, and, specifically, will be to meet the goals set forth in Section IV.C.2.a above. Specific management activities will be set forth in the management plan prepared for each suitable block of reserve land. Management activities to be implemented include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Habitat Management.

Habitat management will be a critical function within all reserves, and ensuring appropriate habitat management will be an important task of TNBC and the management plan. Habitat management activities will vary depending on the habitats found within a particular area and the degree to which they must be managed and enhanced.

Habitat management activities are discussed in Sections IV.C.3 and C.4 above with respect to giant garter snakes and Swainson's hawks, respectively. In addition, consistent with the Site-Specific Management Plan prepared for each reserve, management activities can include: (1) control of water supply and availability; (2) suitable agricultural practices (e.g., rice growing for giant garter snakes and production of other crops for Swainson's hawk foraging); (3) grazing or mowing programs to eliminate weeds or control vegetation; (4) exotic species control; (5) erosion control; (6) enhancement of native plant communities; (7) habitat enhancement activities for the Covered Species (e.g., construction of artificial burrows for giant garter snakes); (8) predator control; (9) enhanced ditch and drain management for the ditches owned by TNBC on reserve lands; and (10) coordination of any research conducted within reserves with outside species experts and other individuals and groups. Management activities will be conducted so as to limit the potential for the management activities benefitting one Covered Species to adversely affect another Covered Species. A copy of any and all research documents produced having to do specifically with NBHCP reserve lands will be obtained where possible and kept as part of the documentation and records for all TNBC lands.
b. Monitoring.

Management plans will address monitoring objectives, needs, and specific methodologies as necessary and as described in Section VI.E.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-36
April 2003
c. Patrolling.

TNBC will periodically patrol the reserves to control prohibited activities such as dumping, shooting, off-road vehicle activity, trespassing, and any other prohibited activity. Patrolling frequency needed to control prohibited activities will vary with each area and will depend on the area's location, surrounding land uses, proximity to urban areas, and historic uses of the land. The patrol function may be performed by any suitable entity approved by TNBC.
d. Rice Production Practices
Rice farming on any land under TNBC control and serving to mitigate impacts of Authorized Development shall be managed in a manner to enhance habitat values for giant garter snakes and other NBHCP Covered Species. Overall, TNBC rice production practices promote enhanced habitat values through minor to moderate adjustments in cultivation practices. The rice production practices include guidelines related to vegetation management (including weed management, treatment of crop stubble through burning and discing), and maintenance of those ditches that are owned by TNBC (time of maintenance, alternating bank maintenance on an annual basis) shall be subject to the Site Specific Management Plan prepared for each reserve. The rice production practices will be reviewed and revised as needed based on monitoring or other relevant information.

3. Restoration and Enhancement Programs
The ultimate goal of the NBHCP reserve system is to provide sustainable habitat communities capable of supporting the appropriate Covered Species, and to convert disturbed lands in the NBHCP reserve system into such sustainable communities. It is expected that many of the lands purchased for the reserve system will be disturbed to some degree or previously used for other purposes and will require restoration or enhancement. Restoration and enhancement programs will therefore play an important role in developing sustainable habitat communities on reserve lands.

The management plan for each parcel or block of reserve lands will identify specific restoration and enhancement needs and discuss the expected costs of such restoration and the timing of implementation.

Some important habitat enhancement activities for the giant garter snake (e.g., construction of managed marshes) and Swainson's hawk (e.g., planting of future nest trees) are discussed in Section IV.C.3 and C.4 above. Additional restoration activities that may be implemented on NBHCP reserve lands include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Restoring Natural Drainage Patterns/Erosion Control
Restoring the natural drainage pattern of a reserve unit, whether it is to prevent unnatural ponding, to restore natural ponding, or to channel runoff to appropriate areas, is the precursor to establishing or enhancing some native habitat communities. For example, it is important to provide drainage patterns and NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-37
April 2003
moisture regimes suitable for certain native plants. In addition, the growth of exotic plant species and erosion may be deterred by the restoration of natural moisture regimes. b. Exotic/Invasive Plant Control
If necessary, integrated pest management programs for exotic or other plants will be implemented in consultation with County Agricultural Commissioner's offices or other suitable experts (e.g., if exotic or invasive plant species threaten native plant communities) and as covered by the SSMP prepared for the reserve.
c. Domestic/Feral Animal Control.

In some portions of the Plan Area, cats are a possible threat to giant garter snakes, burrowing owls, tri-colored blackbirds and small mammals that are prey forage. If feral cats become established, control of feral cats in reserve areas may be necessary. Control programs for domestic or feral animals will also be implemented for other species as necessary.

4. Reserve Water Management
One of the primary functions of the Mitigation Lands under the NBHCP is to provide wetland habitat values through rice farming or through establishment of managed marsh. Any land to be managed as rice or marsh for the reserve system must have an adequate water supply (see Section IV.C.2.c.2 above).
a. Water Needs for TNBC Rice Cultivation
The majority of water used for rice cultivation in the Natomas Basin is diverted through a system of channels from the Sacramento River. Following the discing and leveling of the fields, water is introduced to the fields and aerial seeding is conducted, usually from mid-April to mid-May (University of California 1983). The water in the fields initially serves to stimulate rice seed germination, and thereafter assists in controlling weed growth (California Rice Promotion Board 1991).

To control the growth of undesirable aquatic vegetation, herbicides are usually applied to the majority of flooded rice fields once the rice seedlings have emerged in April or May. The water system in the Natomas Basin is a “closed system.” As a closed system, it does not release flows into the River until late August or early September, and even then in controlled amounts. The area does not fully drain until October.

The total amount of water typically supplied to rice fields during a year differs from the actual net usage. The ultimate fate of water applied to rice fields can be broken into three general fractions: (1) evapotranspiration (solar evaporation and transpiration from vegetation), (2) percolation into the soil, and NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-38
April 2003
(3) outflow from the rice field. Using data from various individual rice fields, Jack Williams, the Sutter County Rice Farm Advisor for the University of California Cooperative Extension, has calculated the average net water use at about 6.5 acre-feet per acre of rice (about 1.5 acre feet of this is outflow) for rice farms in Sutter County, outside of the Natomas Basin. The Rice Experimental Station in Biggs, located in southern Butte County, has estimated that between 4.8 and 6.7 acre-feet of water per acre are used in rice cultivation.

Rice growers that use a water recycling system save an average of 0.6 acre-feet of water per acre.

Estimates of water reuse by districts vary from 1 to 28 percent of the applied water, depending on feasibility within the district (California Rice Promotion Board 1991).

The most significant variable between individual rice fields that affects these figures of average net water use is percolation. One reason why these lands are so well suited for rice growing is that most fields have tight clay soils which greatly restrict water loss through percolation. Most rice fields have a hydraulic conductivity (percolation) in the range of 0.32 to 0.42 inches per day. However, certain areas have rice fields with higher percolation rates because of a greater percentage of sandy soils (California Rice Promotion Board 1991). Through the removal of rice fields with high percolation rates from production, and improved water irrigation systems and cultivation practices, water use for rice cultivation has decreased significantly in the past decade. The average net water use for individual fields in the Sacramento Valley rice fields as a whole has dropped from approximately 6.5 acre-feet in the 1970's to the present level of

4.4 acre-feet per acre (California Rice Promotion Board 1991). Within the Natomas Basin, rice crop irrigation requires approximately 3.9 acre-feet per acre (Natomas Mutual 2001), a relatively low level of water demand reflecting the efficiency of the Natomas Mutual system, as well as the local soil characteristics and the carefully leveled fields of the Natomas Basin. b. Water Needs for Managed Wetlands
Water requirements for maintaining natural and managed marsh areas are similar to those needed for rice cultivation. Until TNBC identifies specific marsh lands for acquisition, it is impossible to determine the exact water needs for maintaining these marsh areas within a given habitat reserve. It is, however, possible to predict water requirements for marsh maintenance based on data from the state-managed Gray Lodge Wildlife Management Area. Gray Lodge consists of approximately 8,375 acres. It is estimated that to achieve full use of habitat development opportunities at Gray Lodge, a firm water supply of about 44,000 acre-feet of water would be required--for an average requirement of 5.25 acre-feet of water per acre.

These water requirements for Gray Lodge are likely to be higher than those for the Natomas Basin. This is because of the efficiency of the Natomas Basin recirculation system (approximately 85%) and extensive land leveling within the Natomas Basin. Nonetheless, the Gray Lodge water needs have been used to determine whether water supply would be available to create and maintain managed marsh within the Natomas Basin.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-39
April 2003
c. Available Water Supply
The most critical element required in the establishment and maintenance of wetland habitat is the continued availability of a source of good quality water. TNBC, as a landowner within Natomas Mutual’s agricultural irrigation service area, will be entitled to its fair share of water entitlements on an annual basis.

TNBC will look to Natomas Mutual for irrigation water for both rice cultivation and marsh management.

Based upon information obtained from Natomas Mutual, TNBC is expected to receive sufficient water annually to meet its needs.

TNBC estimates that managed marsh will require somewhat less annual irrigation than rice cultivation. Additionally, some portion of each TNBC reserve will be maintained as upland habitat that would require less irrigation than the irrigated crops that dominate active and long-term agricultural lands.

Therefore, it is not anticipated that TNBC reserves will result in water demands beyond the service ability of Natomas Mutual.

In determining the likelihood of adequate irrigation water supplies to support TNBC reserves, reliability of Natomas Mutual water supplies is a key factor. Natomas Mutual possesses a number of senior water rights, most of which precede the Central Valley Project. Based upon these rights, Natomas Mutual’s water allocation may 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 4.2 million acre feet).

In recent years, Natomas Mutual has installed sophisticated improvements to allow substantial increases in water recirculation within the Natomas Basin. Utilizing this infrastructure, Natomas Mutual has, in recent years, been able to serve all of their water users fully during periods of drought- related water supply reductions.

If long-term water shortages occur, possibly through a complete restructuring of water rights in response to state or federal habitat restoration and/or species recovery programs, restructuring of the CVP/SWP, Calfed or other similar programs, then TNBC would be required to implement alternative water supply strategies. The most immediately available alternative irrigation source would be groundwater.

Groundwater is readily available throughout the Basin and it is estimated that reliance on ground water resources would increase irrigation costs for TNBC reserve by approximately 50% to 100% (John Roberts, TNBC). While such cost increases would be significant, it is reasonable to assume that TNBC could adjust for this expense for the following reasons: 1) irrigation costs are only one of many costs associated with reserve management; 2) farmers leasing TNBC lands are obligated to pay for their agricultural water use, and the agricultural water demand is in excess of 50% of total irrigation costs for given reserve site, thereby substantially offsetting any increases in water costs; and, 3) as part of the mitigation fee, developers contribute to a contingency fund for each acre of land developed and this fund is established for expenses such as unanticipated irrigation costs. In addition to groundwater, TNBC might also seek to acquire tailwater from other water users or water providers within the Natomas Basin where NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-40
April 2003
TNBC in consultation with the NBHCP TAC, determine such water is of appropriate quality for Mitigation Lands.

In response to the high level of importance associated with adequate water supplies for reserves, TNBC currently explores various water supply options prior to acquiring reserve lands. In the case of TNBC’s reserve known as the BKS property, three alternative water sources were identified, including:
1) tail water from the Stolt Sea Farm; 2) ground water wells (the property has six operational wells, three in daily operation and three with no engines); and 3) Natomas Water Company which has agreed to explore water deliveries with TNBC. In order to ensure adequate water availability, TNBC will continue to seek alternative water supplies in addition to Natomas Mutual as reserve sites are acquired. If there is not an adequate water supply for the type of reserve (i.e., wetlands) or an existing reserve site looses all available water, then TNBC may consider converting that site to an upland reserve, or selling the reserve site and seeking an alternative reserve location with adequate water.

5. Avoiding Management Conflicts With the Sacramento Airport All mitigation lands established for the NBHCP reserve system will need to be located and managed to avoid potential safety conflicts relating to collisions between aircraft and birds, and to be consistent with the May, 1997 Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular concerning wildlife attractants in the vicinity of airports (see Appendix E). The Advisory Circular recommends the following distances between an airport's aircraft movement areas, loading ramps, or aircraft parking areas and the wildlife attractant: (1) 5,000 feet for airports serving piston-powered aircraft; and (2) 10,000 feet for airports serving turbine-powered aircraft. In addition, the Circular recommends that a distance of five statute miles be maintained between a wildlife attractant and the airport's approach or departure airspace if the attractant may cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace.

The primary potential conflict of reserve land management with the Sacramento International Airport would be where permanent or seasonal wetlands are managed in a way that attracts wintering waterfowl within the distances indicated above. To some extent, attracting waterfowl to reserve lands is contemplated by the Plan, since hunting revenues form a portion of the Plan's funding mechanisms (see Section VI.B). Consequently, where waterfowl hunting is to be incorporated into reserve land management, potential conflicts with the airport will need to be considered, and, if necessary, hunting (especially of waterfowl) will need to be foregone or increased in certain areas if potential conflicts with the airport cannot be adequately resolved. Hunting for upland species (e.g., pheasant), on the other hand, is unlikely to result in airport hazards unless the activity occurs in the airport's immediate vicinity.

Rice farming is also a form of mitigation land management (see Section IV.D.4) as well as a potential revenue source (Section VI.B). Rice farming is a common land use in the airport vicinity and is not typically regulated by the airport; however, some rice farming operations (e.g., winter flooding) could attract waterfowl hazardous to aircraft (see Section III.B.5). Consequently, rice farming on NBHCP NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLAN IV-41
April 2003
reserve lands must also be incorporated into reserve management in a way that is consistent with safe airport operation.

To address these problems, reduction or elimination of potential conflicts between reserve land management and airport operation will be a specific component of reserve management plans to be developed by the NBC, and all draft reserve management plans will be submitted to the Airport Facilities Manager for coordination and review prior to approval by TNBC and the NBHCP Technical Advisory Committee (see Section IV.D.1).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP -- CONSERVATION PLANIV-42
April 2003
NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-1 April 2003
V. TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION
The conservation strategy contained in Chapter IV describes the acquisition and habitat management guidelines to be employed by the Natomas Basin Conservancy. In addition to TNBC programs, the Permittees will each conduct various activities and apply various operational guidelines to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the take of Covered Species resulting from Authorized Development and Water Agency O&M activities within the Natomas Basin.

The measures presented in this Chapter are organized into three categories: measures that relate to the Land Use Agencies (City of Sacramento and Sutter County); measures that relate to the TNBC as a Permittee, and measures that relate to the Water Agencies (RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual).

A. LAND USE AGENCIES’ CONSERVATION MEASURES
In addition to accepting and transferring to TNBC Mitigation Fees, and possibly land dedications, as required under the NBHCP, the Land Use Agencies shall implement a variety of measures that will avoid, minimize or mitigate the take of Covered Species (“Conservation Measures”). These Conservation Measures shall be implemented or monitored by the involved Land Use Agency for development projects as conditions in Urban Development Permits, as well as for public projects sponsored by the respective Land Use Agency.

1. Pre-Construction Surveys
Not less than 30 days or more than 6 months prior to commencement of construction activities on specific Authorized Development sites in the NBHCP area, a pre-construction survey of the site shall be conducted to determine the status and presence of, and likely impacts to, all Covered Species on the site.

However, pre-construction surveys for an individual species may be completed up to one year in advance if the sole period for reliable detection of that species is between May 1 and December 31. The applicant seeking to develop land will be responsible for contracting with qualified biological consultants to carry out the pre-construction surveys, and as necessary, to implement specific take minimization, and other Conservation Measures set forth in the NBHCP and approved by the Wildlife Agencies.

The results of the pre-construction surveys along with recommended take minimization measures shall be documented in a report and shall be submitted to the Land Use Agency, USFWS, CDFG and TNBC. Based upon the survey results, the Land Use Permittees will identify applicable take avoidance and other site specific Conservation Measures, consistent with this NBHCP, required to be carried out on the site. The approved pre-construction survey documents and list of Conservation Measures will be submitted by the developer of the Authorized Development project to the applicable Land Use Agency to demonstrate compliance with the NBHCP.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-2 April 2003
Reconnaissance level surveys should be conducted prior to species specific surveys to determine what habitats are present on a specific development site and what, if any, more intensive survey activities should be conducted to accurately determine the status of the Covered Species on the site. It shall be the obligation of the developer/landowner to complete July 25, 2002such surveys and the Land Use Agency Permitees’s responsibility to ensure the surveys are properly completed prior to disturbance of habitat.

Surveys shall be conducted by qualified personnel (e.g., persons with suitable biological, botanical, or related expertise). Note: negative species-specific survey results generally do not obviate the requirement to implement minimization measures prescribed in the revised NBHCP where a pre-construction survey indicates that habitat for a particular listed species exists onsite.

2. Preservation of the Area Adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake Fisherman’s Lake and portions along both sides are and will continue to be, owned and managed by RD 1000. Also, RD 1000 has an easement on portions of the land along the east side of Fisherman’s Lake. The easement was granted for flood control purposes and all uses not inconsistent with flood control were reserved to the land owner. The City shall create a buffer on the City side of Fisherman’s Lake.

Towards that end, the City of Sacramento approved the necessary action in June 2003 to amend the North Natomas Financing Plan to include the buffer area along Fisherman’s Lake in the Land Acquisition Program (i.e., development impact fees will be increased to fund acquisition of the buffer area). The buffer area will be managed by TNBC.

According to the City’s North Natomas Community Plan, the buffer area along Fisherman’s Lake is a 250 foot wide land area stretching from Del Paso Road to El Centro Road on the City side of Fisherman’s Lake, a portion of the West Drain. The east side of Fisherman’s Lake is in the City of Sacramento and the west side is in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the City has agreed to initiate a North Natomas Community Plan amendment to potentially widen the agricultural buffer along the City side of Fisherman’s lake to 800 feet wide.

As of July 2002, TNBC owns 136 acres of Mitigation Land on the Sacramento County side of Fisherman’s Lake, in partial compliance with the City of Sacramento’s Settlement Agreement that requires acquisition of 250 acres of Mitigation Land in Zone 1.

Giant garter snakes, Swainson’s hawks and other Covered Species inhabit the Fisherman’s Lake area, a portion of the West Drain. According to the 2000 Annual Survey Results for the Swainson’s Hawk, dated September 2000, prepared by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, there are three nests along Fisherman’s Lake. No data was available for the nests in 1998; 3 young were fledged from two of the nests in 1999; and two of the three nests were inactive and the third nest was active but failed to fledge any young in 2000. Also, Figure 5 in the 2000 Field Season Report for the Giant Garter Snake, dated December 21, 2000, and prepared by USGS, indicates the use of Fisherman’s Lake by giant garter snakes.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-3 April 2003

3. General Measures to Minimize Take
In order to generally minimize the impacts of development on Covered Species, the City of Sacramento and Sutter County shall impose the following requirements on Authorized Development when approving Urban Development Permits within the Natomas Basin:
a. 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. b. 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.
c. 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 chapter.
d. Protected Plant/Animal Species, also referred to as “Special Status Species”: Search for protected plants species during flowering season prior to construction and protected animal species during the appropriate season.

4. Measures to Minimize Take of Vernal Pool Species
Vernal pool resources within the Natomas Basin are limited to small pools generally located in the far eastern portion of the Natomas Basin. Intact vernal pool complexes are not known to occur within the City or the Sutter County Land Use Agencies’ Permit Areas. However, it is possible that isolated vernal pools exist within the Permit Areas of the City and the County and, therefore, would be subject to disturbance by Authorized Development or other Covered Activities.

Vernal pool resources within the City and the Sutter County Permit Areas shall be identified prior to disturbance through pre-construction surveys and other biological investigations. Such resources shall be discovered either through the early CEQA project review (required for general plan, specific plan, rezone, subdivision and other discretionary approvals of the Land Use Agencies) or during the pre- construction surveys required under the NBHCP. The following measures shall be implemented by the Land Use Agencies prior to issuance of Urban Development Permits when public or private development projects are proposed for areas that may support wetlands and/or vernal pool species. (Note: The following mitigation measures do not replace or exempt an applicant from applying for and complying with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the related Section 7 consultations with USFWS in the event such resources are determined to be subject to Section 404. Rather, these mitigations set the standard for mitigation of vernal pool resources in the NBHCP area.) NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-4 April 2003
a. General Biological Survey and Information Required.

In the event a biological reconnaissance survey or the pre-construction survey identifies that vernal pool resources are on-site, a vernal pool species specific biological assessment must be provided by the developer to the Land Use Agency during the appropriate season (as established by USFWS) to determine the type and abundance of species present. The species specific biological assessment must include a USFWS-approved plant survey 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. The biological species survey shall cover all vernal pools, swales, and other seasonal wetlands capable of supporting vernal pool species within 250 feet of project activities, and shall identify both potential direct and indirect effects of the development.

Standards for the survey shall be in accordance with the USFWS Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods (April 19, 1996) or the most recent approved USFWS survey guidelines for vernal pool species (Appendix L). This assessment must be submitted with the urban development permit 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 resources would be disturbed by a project, then take of vernal pool associated Covered Species would be covered under the NBHCP, subject to the following limitation and guidelines:
(1) 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 (see Section (a) above regarding biological information required) adequate to allow the Land Use Agency, and the USFWS and CDFG to determine the potential for impacts to vernal pool species resulting from the proposed development.
(2) Following notification by the Land Use Agency, USFWS 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 attached as Appendix G as it may be amended from time to time). 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 the sensitive plant species. In some cases, USFWS and CDFG may require complete avoidance of vernal pool species, such as where Covered Species such as slender orcutt grass, Sacramento orcutt grass, Colusa grass and/or vernal pool tadpole shrimp are found to be present. Such measures shall be identified by USFWS and CDFG NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-5 April 2003
within 30 days or as soon as possible thereafter of notification and submittal of biological data to the agencies by the Land Use Agency.
(3) The requirement by USFWS to preserve a vernal pool within development would be based on identification of an intact vernal pool with minimal disturbance where the presence of one or more of the following species is recorded: slender orcutt grass, Sacramento orcutt grass, Colusa grass, or vernal pool tadpole shrimp.

Prior to requiring on-site preservation of a vernal pool area, USFWS shall consider the suitability of the vernal pool as TNBC Mitigation Lands. No such preservation requirement shall be made unless the vernal pool is a suitable site for TNBC Mitigation Lands. Such vernal pool areas, including any required buffer land dedication, shall apply toward the Land Acquisition Fee component of the development project’s NBHCP mitigation obligation.
b. Mitigation Strategies: Vernal pool resources identified through site specific investigations shall be mitigated in one of three general approaches as described below. (1) Avoidance and Preservation On-Site as a Means to Minimize Impacts In the event USFWS requires on-site preservation in accordance with Section a.3 above, on-site mitigation shall be required. In the event USFWS does not require on-site mitigation, a developer or private land owner may still propose to dedicate fee title or conservation easement for that portion of the property with vernal pool resources and an associated 250-foot buffer surrounding the vernal pool resource to the TNBC. Acceptance of the offer to dedicate shall be subject to review and approval by the Land Use Agency, TNBC Board and the Wildlife Agencies. The TNBC Board and the Wildlife Agencies shall consider the location, connections, species present, condition of the proposed site to be dedicated, and may decide to accept the dedication in lieu of payment of the Land Acquisition Fee portion of the NBHCP Mitigation Fee for the affected acreage. TNBC Board may accept or decline the offer based on the balance of habitat needs and the biological goals of the HCP. If the dedication is accepted, a reduction in the Land Acquisition Fee portion of the habitat Mitigation Fee shall be granted 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 all fees other than Land Acquisition 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 TNBC and the TAC.

In the event the developer does not support on-site preservation or TNBC does not accept the offer to dedicate, then one of the following mitigation approaches shall be employed.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-6 April 2003
(2) Construction Period Avoidance and Relocation of Vernal Pool Resources.

Relocation of vernal pool resources and commencement of Authorized Development shall be subject to the following mitigation measures will be required:
(a) 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.
(b) In consultation with TNBC and the TAC, soils and cysts from the vernal pool may be relocated as soon as practicable during the dry season to a suitable TNBC or other reserve site provided the relocation/recreation site is approved by TNBC, and the USFWS.

If it is not practicable to relocate vernal pool resources, and/or TNBC or USFWS determine that TNBC does not have a suitable reserve site for relocation of resources, then the applicant shall follow the mitigation approach outlined in Section (3) below.
(3) Payment Into a USFWS Approved Conservation Bank .

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 V-1.

USFWS shall determine the type and amount of credits to be purchased based on the impacts associated with the development.

Mitigation ratios for credits dedicated in Service-approved mitigation banks or for acres of habitat outside of mitigation banks shall be as follows:

TABLE V-1

MITIGATION RATIOS
Bank Non-Bank
Preservation 2:1 3:1
Creation 1:1 2:1
NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-7 April 2003
Preservation Component: For every acre of habitat directly or indirectly affected, at least two vernal pool credits will be dedicated within a Service-approved ecosystem preservation bank, or based on Service 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 Service.

Creation Component: For every acre of habitat directly affected, at least one vernal pool creation credit will be dedicated within a Service-approved habitat mitigation bank, or based on Service 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 Service.

5. Measures to Reduce Take for Individual Species
Identified below are specific measures that will be imposed as conditions on Urban Development Permits or implemented for public works projects, and enforced by the Land Use Agencies to mitigate, minimize and avoid take of each NBHCP Covered Species, as related to urban development. Specific measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate take resulting from TNBC and Water Agency Covered Activities are provided in Sections V.B and V.C., respectively.
a. Measures to Reduce Take of Giant Garter Snake
(1) 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. (2) Pre-construction surveys for giant garter snake, as well as other NBHCP 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. (3) 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.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-8 April 2003
(4) 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. (5) 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. (6) 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.
(7) 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/her assignee, shall do the following:
(a) 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.
(8) 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-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825, telephone 916 414-6600). Written notification to both offices must be made within 3 calendar days and must include the date, time, and location of the finding of a specimen and any other pertinent information.
(9) 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 NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-9 April 2003
inspected by a qualified biologist to assure that giant garter snake are not using it as hibernaculae.
(10) No plastic, monofilament, jute, or similar erosion control matting that could entangle snakes will be placed on a project site when working within 200 feet of snake aquatic or rice habitat. Possible substitutions include coconut coir matting, tactified hydroseeding compounds, or other material approved by the Wildlife Agencies. (11) Fences will be constructed along the shared boundary of urban development and the North Drainage Canal and the East Drainage Canal within Sutter’s Permit Area, subject to the following guidelines:
(a) A minimum of 100 feet will be provided from fence-to-fence and access to the canals shall be limited by gates
(b) A snake deterrent will be placed along the fences on the North Drainage Canal and the East Drainage Canal (i.e., fence construction that restricts snake movement or an appropriate vegetative barrier either inside or outside of the boundary fence). The design of the deterrent shall be subject to approval by the Wildlife Agencies.
(c) The specific fence/snake barrier design adjacent to a given development will be determined within Sutter County’s review of the proposed development and the fence/barrier shall be installed immediately after site grading is completed.
(12) At the time of urban development along the North and East Drainage Canals, Sutter shall consult with the Wildlife Agencies to determine design strategies that would enhance conditions for giant garter snake movement through the North and East Drainage Canals.

Possible strategies may include expanded buffer areas and modified canal cross sections if such measures are, in the determination of Sutter and the Water Agencies, found to be feasible.
b. Measures to Reduce Take of Swainson’s Hawk
Measures to Reduce Cumulative Impacts to Foraging Habitat (1) To maintain and promote Swainson’s hawk habitat values, Sutter County will not obtain coverage under the NBHCP and incidental take permits, 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 NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-10 April 2003
limited its Permit Area within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone to the approximately 252 acres located within the North Natomas Community Plan that was designated for urban development in 1994 and, likewise, will not grant development approvals within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone beyond this designated 252 acres. It should be noted that of these 252 acres of land in the Swainson's Hawk Zone, about 80 acres will be 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 NBHCP coverage for development within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone beyond that described above, granting of such coverage would require an amendment to the NBHCP 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.

Because the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program (OCP) adequately minimizes and mitigates the effects of take of the Swainson’s hawk depends substantially on the exclusion of future urban development from the City’s and Sutter County’s portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, approval by the City of future urban development (i.e., uses not consistent with Agricultural Zoning) in the zone beyond the 170 (252 acres minus 80) acres identified above or approval by Sutter of any future urban development in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s OCP and would trigger a reevaluation of the City’s and/or Sutter’s Permits and possible suspension or revocation of the City’s and/or County’s permits.

Measures to Reduce Nest Disturbance
(1) Prior to the commencement of development activities at any development site within the NBHCP area, a pre-construction survey shall be completed by the respective developer 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 ½ mile of the development site. These surveys shall be conducted according to the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’s (May 31, 2000) methodology or updated methodologies, as approved by the Service and CDFG, using experienced Swainson’s hawk surveyors. (2) 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 ½ mile of an active nest between March 15 and September 15, or until a qualified biologist, with concurrence by CDFG, has determined that 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 the 1/4 mile versus ½ mile. Routine disturbances such as agricultural activities, commuter traffic, and routine facility maintenance activities within ½ mile of an active nest are not restricted.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-11 April 2003
(3) 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 September 15 and February 1.
(4) 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 the California Department of Fish and Game has determined that the young have fledged and are no longer dependent upon the nest tree.
(5) If construction or other project related activities which may cause nest abandonment or forced fledgling are proposed within the 1/4 mile buffer zone, intensive monitoring (funded by the project sponsor) by a Department of Fish and Game approved raptor biologist will be required. Exact implementation of this measure will be based on specific information at the project site.

Measures to Prevent the Loss of Nest Trees
(1) 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 Plan Area where large oak groves, tree groves and riparian habitat have been identified in the Plan Area.
(2) The raptor nesting season shall be avoided when scheduling construction near nests in accordance with applicable guidelines published by the Wildlife Agencies or through consultation with the Wildlife Agencies.

Measures to Mitigate the Loss of Swainson’s Hawk Nest Trees (1) The NBHCP will require 15 trees (five gallon container size) 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 from the applicable developer for purchase, planting, maintenance and monitoring of trees at the time of approval of each Authorized Development project. TNBC shall determine the appropriate cost for planting, maintenance and monitoring of trees NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-12 April 2003
(2) 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 5 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 5-year period to ensure survival until the end of the monitoring period. A 100% success rate shall be achieved. All necessary planting requirements and maintenance (i.e., fertilizing , irrigation) to ensure success shall be provided. Trees must be irrigated for a minimum of the first 5 years after planting, and then gradually weaned off the irrigation in an approximate 2-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% establishment success. Remediation of any dead trees shall include completion of the survival and establishment process described.
(3) 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 walnut 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 shall be planted in clumps of 3 trees each. Planting stock shall be a minimum of 5- gallon container stock for oak and walnut species.
(4) 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 NBHCP and ITP’s. It is estimated at this time that 4 nesting trees within the City of Sacramento are most likely to be impacted by Authorized Development in the near term. Therefore, in order to reduce temporal impacts, the City of Sacramento will advance funding for 60 sapling trees of diverse, suitable species (different growing rates) to TNBC 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.
(5) 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 TNBC preserves.

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.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-13 April 2003
c. Measures to Reduce Take to Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB) The Land Use Agencies shall require private developers and public infrastructure projects to comply with conservation practices for the VELB set forth in the conditions of the “USFWS Compensation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle," dated1999, attached as Appendix C as it may be updated from time to time. This policy assumes that any elderberry bushes found within the range of the species are likely to provide beetle habitat, and any destruction or loss of such elderberry shrub habitat must be mitigated according to the Guidelines. The principle conditions of the Guidelines are summarized below; Appendix C contains the Guidelines in their entirety. These Guidelines, or any revision or successor to the Guidelines approved by the USFWS, are hereby incorporated as terms and conditions of the NBHCP.

Prior to approval of Urban Development Permit, the involved Land Use Agency shall require a pre- construction survey. If such survey determines VELB habitat is present, the Land Use Agency shall require the developer to follow the following appropriate measures to avoid take and minimize of individuals:
(1) 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. Pre-construction surveys at the construction impact site will be conducted to assess the appropriate amount of mitigation. (2) 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.
(3) 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. (4) Annual monitoring of VELB habitat will be provided in the planted mitigation sites for a ten year period.
(5) Replacement elderberry shrubs will meet a 60% survival rate by the end of the ten year period and the 60% survival rate shall be required for the term of the applicable permit. d. Measures to Reduce Take on Tricolored Blackbird
(1) Prior to approval of an Urban Development Permit, the involved Land Use Agency shall require a pre-construction survey of potential breeding and nesting habitat for presence of breeding and nesting tricolored blackbirds.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-14 April 2003
(2) If surveys determine tricolored blackbirds are present, the following measures shall be implemented in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, to avoid disturbance to active (occupied) nesting colonies 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 to July 1, or while birds are present. A qualified biologist, with concurrence of USFWS, must determine young have fledged and nest sites are no longer active before the nest site may be disturbed. e. Measures to Reduce Take on Aleutian Canada Goose
(1) Prior to approval of an Urban Development Permit, the applicable Land Use Agency shall require a pre-construction survey. If such survey determines Aleutian Canada Goose are present, the Land Use Agency shall require the developer to consult with USFWS and CDFG 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. f. Measures to Reduce Take on White-faced Ibis
(1) Prior to approval of an Urban Development Permit, the involved Land Use Agency shall require a pre-construction survey.
(2) If surveys determine the presence of active nest sites of White-faced ibis, disturbance by Authorized Development within 1/4 mile of nests will be avoided within the nesting season of May 15 through August 31 or until a qualified biologist, with concurrence of Wildlife Agencies, has determined that young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied. g. Measures to Reduce Take on Loggerhead Shrike
(1) Prior to approval of Urban Development Permit, the involved Land Use Agency shall require a pre-construction survey.
(2) 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.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-15 April 2003
h. Measures to Reduce Take of Burrowing Owl
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-16 April 2003
(5) 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 (see Appendix D).
i. Measures to Reduce Take on Bank Swallow
(1) Disturbance to bank swallows nesting colonies will be avoided within the nesting season of May 1 through August 31 (or until a qualified biologist, with concurrence of USFWS and CDFG, has determined that young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied) during all Authorized Development activities conducted in the Permit Areas. (2) 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 ½ mile upstream or downstream of the colony will be avoided if the colony is located upon a natural waterway.
j. Measures to Reduce Take on Northwestern Pond Turtle
(1) 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 (see Section 5.a.(3)).
k. Measures to Reduce Take on California Tiger Salamander (1) Prior to approval of an Urban Development Permit, the involved Land Use Agency shall require a pre-construction survey. If a future survey determine the presence of California tiger salamander, the Land Use Agency shall require the developer to consult with USFWS and CDFG to determine appropriate measures to avoid and minimize take of individuals.
l. Measures to Reduce Take on Western Spadefoot Toad
(1) Prior to approval of an Urban Development Permit, the involved Land Use Agency shall require a pre-construction survey. If such survey determines western spadefoot toad are NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-17 April 2003
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. m. Measures to Reduce Take of Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp, and Midvalley Fairy Shrimp
(1) Prior to approval of an Urban Development Permit, the involved Land Use Agency shall require a pre-construction survey. If such survey determine 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. Procedures for reviewing projects that could affect vernal pools and vernal pool species are discussed under Section V.A.4 above. n. Measures to Reduce Take of Delta Tule Pea
(1) If Delta tule pea plants are identified through a pre-construction survey, the involved Land Use Agency shall provide notice to USFWS, CDFG and the California Native Plan Society. Under such circumstances, the development proponent shall allow the transplantation of plants prior to site disturbance.
o. Measures to Reduce Take on Sanford's Arrowhead
(1) If Sanford’s arrowhead plants are identified through a pre-construction survey, 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. p. Measures to Reduce Take on Boggs Lake Hedge-Hyssop, Sacramento Orcutt Grass, Slender Orcutt Grass, Colusa Grass, and Legenere
(1) Prior to approval of an Urban Development Permit, the involved Land Use Agency shall require a pre-construction survey. If such survey determines 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 loss of individuals. If Authorized Development is proposed for areas containing vernal pools, the applicant will be required to complete additional review, permitting and mitigation as described under Section V.A.4.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-18 April 2003
B. THE NATOMAS BASIN CONSERVANCY’S (TNBC) CONSERVATION MEASURES As a Permittee, TNBC shall employ a number of measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate take of Covered Species during the undertaking of the TNBC’s Covered Activities. The TNBC’s Covered Activities include 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. Chapter IV, the Conservation Plan, outlines a number of actions which the TNBC will use to avoid take in the acquisition and management of habitat reserves. In addition to those measures specified in Chapter IV, the TNBC shall also employ the following measures.

1. General Conservation Strategies
The Existing Conditions Biological Assessment, as described in Section IV.D.1.a, shall document the types of habitat present on newly acquired reserves and the Covered Species that might be present on the site.

The data collected through the Existing Conditions Biological Assessment shall be utilized 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, TNBC shall conduct a formal pre-construction survey of the site to determine the status and presence of, and likely impacts to, all Covered Species on the site. For purpose of TNBC, major construction shall include site grading or contouring, dredging or filling of ditches or drainage systems, construction of reserve access roads or other structures. Actions involving substantial vegetation removal or the removal shall also be subject to pre-construction survey, which may be more focused to identify the presence of nests of Covered Species, other likely species impacts. TNBC will utilize qualified biological consultants to carry out the pre-construction surveys, and as necessary, to implement specific take minimization measures set forth in the NBHCP and approved by the Wildlife Agencies.

2. Conservation Strategies for Wetland Species and Reserves The TNBC shall employ the wetland conservation acquisition and management strategies included in Chapter IV.

3. Conservation Strategies for Upland Species and Reserves The TNBC shall employ the upland conservation acquisition and management strategies included in Chapter IV.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-19 April 2003

4. Conservation Strategies for Individual Species
a. Giant Garter Snake

1. All construction activity involving disturbance of habitat, such as site preparation and initial grading, will be restricted to the snake’s active period (May 1 - September 30).

2. Avoid construction activities within 200 feet from banks of giant garter snake aquatic habitat and confine movement of heavy equipment to existing roadways to minimize habitat disturbance to the extent feasible.

3. No plastic, monofilament, jute, or similar erosion control matting that could entangle snakes will be placed on a project site when working within 200 feet of snake aquatic or rice habitat. Possible substitutions include coconut coir matting, tactified hydroseeding compounds, or other material approved by the Wildlife Agencies.

4. Pre-construction surveys for the snake, as well as other Covered Species, will be completed for all development projects by a qualified biologist who has been approved by the Service. If snake habitat is found within a specific site, the following additional measures shall be implemented to minimize disturbance of habitat and harassment of the snake, unless that project is specifically exempted by the Service:
(a) Between April 15 and September 30, all irrigation ditches, canals, or other aquatic habitat will 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. The dewatered habitat will be observed to ensure that it does not continue to support snake prey, which could attract snakes to the project site. If a site cannot be completely dewatered, snake prey items will be removed using netting or other salvage methods. (b) No more than 24-hours prior to the start of construction activities (site preparation and/or grading), the project area shall be surveyed for snakes. If construction activities stop on the project site for a period of two weeks or more, a new snake survey shall be completed no more than 24-hours prior to the re-start of construction activities. (c) Clearing will be confined to the minimal area necessary to facilitate construction activities.

Snake habitat within or adjacent to the project will be flagged for avoidance. The avoidance area shall be avoided by all construction personnel. (d) Construction personnel completing site preparation and grading operations shall receive Service-approved environmental awareness training. This training instructs workers on how to identify the snake and its habitats and what to do if a snake is encountered during NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-20 April 2003
construction activities. An on-site biological monitor will be designated during the training. (e) If a live snake is found during construction activities, the Service and the project’s biological monitor will be immediately notified. The biological monitor, or his/her assignee, shall halt construction in the vicinity of the snake. The snake will be monitored and allowed to leave the area 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 the snake should be determined in advance of construction and snakes should always be allowed to leave on their own. If a snake does not leave on its own within one working day, further consultation with the Service will be conducted. (f) Upon locating dead, injured or sick Covered Species, the Conservancy or its designated agents shall notify, within one 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-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825, telephone 916 414-6600).

Written notification to both offices will be made within three calendar days and will include the date, time, and location of the finding of a specimen and any other pertinent information.
(g) Fill or construction debris may be used by the snake as an over-wintering site. Therefore, upon completion of construction activities, any temporary fill and/or construction debris will be removed from the site. If the material is located near undisturbed snake habitat and will be removed between October 1 and April 30, it shall be inspected by a qualified biologist to ensure that snakes are not using it as hibernaculae. b. Swainson’s Hawk
TNBC shall implement the following measures to further enhance habitat and to reduce the potential for take of upland Covered Species during improvement, operation and maintenance of TNBC reserves:
(1) TNBC, in conjunction with the Land Use Agencies, will monitor proposed development in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, where the majority of known Swainson’s hawk nest sites are currently located and, hence, much of the Swainson’s hawk nesting and foraging in the Basin occurs. Based on existing general plans and the City’s and Sutter County’s NBHCP Permit Areas, development in this zone is expected to be limited over the life of the Plan.

However, if the NBHCP is amended and such development does occur, Mitigation Lands established for such development shall, likewise, be located within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. In addition, TNBC shall set as a top priority the acquisition of upland reserve sites in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone (via easement or land purchase. Further, any reserve lands established in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone shall, to the maximum extent possible, be NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-21 April 2003
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. (2) To enhance the success of the species, TNBC reserves shall include tree plantings of valley oaks (quercus lobata), cottonwoods (populus fremontii), various willow including black willow or other suitable species to recreate suitable nesting sites for the Swainson’s hawk over the life of the Plan. Such tree planting shall be in reasonable proximity to upland foraging areas covered by the conservation plan including agricultural areas managed by TNBC.
(3) For rice fields operated by TNBC, rice production practices to increase habitat for Swainson’s hawk shall be incorporated. This includes allowing at least 10% of rice fields to fallow each year as well as allowing foraging before and after rice flooding. It is estimated that during the time hawks are present in the Basin, drained or flooded rice fields provide foraging habitat for an average of 2 months every year. Additionally, it is expected, that wildlife friendly agricultural practices (organic farming, providing crop residual for rodent production, similar to those used at the nearby Cosumnes River Preserve), will greatly increase the habitat value of ricelands to the hawk and other Covered Species. (4) Where possible develop or restore 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 NBHCP Plan Area. Also, the upland component of wetland reserves will benefit some of the upland Covered Species, especially those that also have wetland habitat needs (e.g., the tricolored blackbird). (5) 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 ten-fold in the presence of persistent green food over dry grasses (Batzli, 1986; Bowen, 1987; Gill, 1976). Those green plant species generally preferred by Microtus (bent grass, chickweed, bedstraw, sorrel, plantain and bromus) are tolerant of limited inundation and will do well in a seasonally wetland environment, as well as those ruderal habitats associated with agricultural and water conveyance systems (Ostfeld and Klosterman, 1986). 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 NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-22 April 2003
in edge or ecotone between upland and wetland habitats will greatly enhance upland habitat values for Swainson’s hawk.
(6) Specific plans for acquisition of upland habitat reserve lands will be determined by TNBC in consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee, by applying the objectives and criteria described above, and consistent with the requirements described in Chapter IV.

Specific management plans for reserve sites providing Swainson’s hawk habitat will be developed as described in Chapter IV.
(7) 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 hawk recovery plan goals, once a Swainson’s Hawk Recovery Plan is prepared and approved by CDFG.
(8) 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.

Measures to Reduce Swainson’s Hawk Nest Disturbance
(1) Prior to the commencement of development activities at any reserve site within the NBHCP area, a pre-construction survey shall be completed by TNBC 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 ½ mile of the development site. These surveys shall be conducted according to the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’s (May 31, 2000) methodology or updated methodologies, as approved by the site specific management plan for the reserve site.
(2) If an active Swainson’s hawk nest is identified, no new disturbances (e.g., heavy equipment operation associated with construction) will occur within ½ mile of an active nest site between March 15 and September 15. If the active 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 ½ mile. Routine disturbances such as agricultural activities, commuter traffic and routine facility maintenance activities within ½ mile of an active nest site are not restricted. (3) If practicable, disturbance or destruction of Swainson’s hawk nest sites shall be entirely avoided by designing the project (including construction activities) to maintain the year- round integrity of the nest site.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-23 April 2003
(4) If practicable, disturbance or destruction of Swainson’s hawk nest sites shall be avoided during the active nesting season through seasonal use or other restrictions that apply annually or as needed.
(5) 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 by 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 September 15 and February 1. (6) Disturbance should be avoided within ½ mile of an active nest between March 15 through August 15, or until fledglings are no longer dependent on nest tree habitat (which could be as late as September 15).
(7) 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 the CDFG has determined that the young have fledged and are no longer dependent upon the nest tree.

Measures to Prevent the Loss of Swainson’s Hawk Nest Trees As part of the Urban Development Permit process, the Land Use Agencies will seek to preserve valley oaks, tree groves, riparian habitat and other large trees wherever and whenever possible on publicly owned or controlled lands..

Measures to Mitigate the Loss of Swainson’s Hawk Nest Trees TNBC shall plant replacement trees in upland reserve areas and where appropriate on the edges of wetland reserves. These trees may be contributed to the reserve as part of the Land Use Agencies’ tree mitigation program or may be 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 to 10 years in the case of cottonwoods and willows) and in the long term (i.e., valley oaks, black walnut and sycamores). Trees shall be sited on reserves in proximity to hawk foraging areas.
c. Tricolored Blackbird (Foraging)
(1) 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.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-24 April 2003
(2) 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. (3) 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.
(4) 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.

Tricolored Blackbird (Nesting)
(1) Disturbance to tricolored blackbird nesting colonies will be strictly avoided within the nesting season (April 1 to July 1 or while birds are present) during TNBC development and management activities undertaken on TNBC property in wetland and upland reserve areas unless approved by the Wildlife Agencies. 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 established (through a method determined by TNBC and in consultation with the TAC) to establish a boundary 500 feet from the active nest site on reserve lands. No disturbance associated with TNBC reserve construction, such as major grading operations, shall occur within the designated 500 foot buffer of the reserve during the nesting season of April 1 through July 1 or while birds are present, unless a qualified biologist, with concurrence of USFWS and CDFG, determines young have fledged and nest sites are no longer active. Routine disturbances such as agricultural activities and TNBC reserve management within 500 feet of an active nest site are not restricted so long as no physical disturbance to the nest site occurs. (2) 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 if construction or major grading operations are occurring on the Reserve.
(3) Plantings of wild rose, tule and cattails shall be incorporated in habitat reserve units where biologically appropriate to enhance tricolored blackbird nesting habitat.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-25 April 2003
d. Loggerhead Shrike
(1) TNBC shall encourage and maintain loggerhead shrike perching and nesting sites to the maximum extent practicable on all Conservancy lands.
(2) TNBC shall avoid disturbance to loggerhead shrike nest sites and disturbance of the loggerhead shrike during nesting season during reserve management and enhancement activities to the maximum extent practicable unless otherwise approved by TNBC and in consultation with the TAC.
(3) If the loggerhead shrike nests on a TNBC reserve, TNBC shall identify and mark (through a method determined appropriate by TNBC and in consultation with the TAC) a buffer extending 100 feet from the active nest on reserve lands. No disturbance associated with TNBC reserve construction, such as major grading activities, shall occur within the 100 foot marked area during the nesting season of March 1 through July 31, unless a qualified biologist, with concurrence of the Wildlife Agencies, determines young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied. Routine disturbances such as agricultural activities and TNBC reserve management within 100 feet of an active nest site are not restricted so long as no physical disturbance to the nest site occurs.
e. Burrowing Owl
(1) TNBC 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 Wildlife Agencies The Guidelines for Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Appendix D) shall be utilized to the extent practicable to avoid active nests during reserve construction and management activities. (2) TNBC shall utilize applicable Service or CDFG approved burrowing owl recovery or management plans, and the Adaptive Management provisions described in Section VI.F of this document to implement any additional conservation measures deemed appropriate should use of the Plan Area by this species appreciably increase at any time in the future. (3) In upland reserve areas, TNBC may be asked to create new burrowing owl habitat by creating new burrows or restoring old burrows, based on avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures applied by the Land Use Agency Permittees to proponents of Authorized Development (see Section V.A.5.h). 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 (see Appendix D).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-26 April 2003
f. Bank Swallow
(1) TNBC will avoid disturbance to active bank swallow nesting burrows during reserve management activities to the maximum extent practicable. (2) TNBC shall utilize applicable Service or CDFG approved bank swallow recovery or management plans, and the Adaptive Management provisions described in Section VI.F of this document to implement any additional conservation measures deemed appropriate should use of the Plan Area by this species appreciably increase at any time in the future. (3) 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 and CDFG, 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 the Wildlife Agencies.
(4) If surveys identify an active bank swallow nesting colony that will be impacted by TNBC activities, TNBC shall identify and mark (through a method to be determined by TNBC in consultation with the TAC) a boundary 250 feet from the active nesting colony on reserve lands. No disturbance associated with TNBC 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. Routine disturbances such as agricultural activities and TNBC reserve management within 250 feet of an active nesting colony or within ½ mile upstream or downstream of an active nesting colony are not restricted so long as no physical disturbance to the nest site occurs. g. Aleutian Canada Goose
TNBC shall utilize applicable Service approved Aleutian Canada goose recovery or management plans, and the Adaptive Management provisions described in this document, to implement any additional conservation measures deemed appropriate should use of the Plan Area by this species appreciably increase at any time in the future.
h. White-faced Ibis
(1) TNBC shall utilize applicable Service approved white-faced ibis recovery or management plans, and the Adaptive Management provisions described in this document, to implement any additional conservation measures deemed appropriate should use of the Plan Area by this species appreciably increase at any time in the future.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-27 April 2003
(2) Disturbance to white-faced ibis nesting colonies by TNBC reserve construction activities 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 the Wildlife Agencies, has determined that young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied). During the nesting season, a foraging buffer 1/4 mile in width shall be identified around any active nest site to ensure minimal disturbance to the nest and nearby foraging areas on reserve lands.

Routine disturbances such as agricultural activities and TNBC reserve management within 250 feet of an active nesting colony are not restricted so long as no physical disturbance to the nest site occurs.
i. Northwestern Pond Turtle
TNBC shall consult with northwestern pond turtle researchers and experts periodically during implementation of the NBHCP to determine what, if any, conservation opportunities for this species might exist within TNBC’s reserve system. TNBC shall implement such conservation measures through the Plan’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.
j. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB)
(1) 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.

Pre-construction surveys at the construction impact site will be conducted to assess the appropriate amount of mitigation.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
k. California Tiger Salamander
TNBC shall consult with the TAC and California tiger salamander researchers and experts periodically during implementation of the Plan to determine what, if any, additional conservation NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-28 April 2003
opportunities for this species might exist within the Plan’s proposed reserve system. TNBC shall implement such conservation measures through the Plan’s Adaptive Management and the Site Specific Management Plans prepared for reserve sites 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). Possible relocation and re- introduction of tiger salamanders into the TNBC reserve system may be considered if preconstruction surveys or other NBHCP monitoring show the species is impacted by Authorized Development.
l. Western Spadefoot Toad
TNBC shall consult with the 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. TNBC shall implement such conservation measures through the Plan’s Adaptive Management provisions and through the Site Specific Management Plans prepared for each reserve site as appropriate. In the event preconstruction surveys or other scientific evidence show that the western spadefoot toad is impacted by authorized development, TNBC shall consider creating habitat within reserve sites that is conducive to western spadefoot toads, such as areas of slow-moving waters such as pools and plunge pools of small creeks, and short grasses with sandy or gravelly soils, and other grassy areas. m. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp and Midvalley Fairy Shrimp TNBC shall consult with the TAC, and fairy shrimp and tadpole shrimp experts periodically during implementation of the NBHCP 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 proposed reserve system. In the event preconstruction surveys or other scientific information document impacts to these species from authorized development, TNBC shall implement such conservation measures through the Plan’s Adaptive Management provisions and Site Specific Management Plan prepared for each reserve site as appropriate. n. Delta Tule Pea
(1) TNBC shall evaluate the potential for, and as appropriate, implement measures to further the conservation of Delta tule pea within the NBHCP’s reserve system through appropriate means,. In the event preconstruction surveys or other scientific documentation indicate impacts to the Delta Tule Pea as a result of authorized development, the TNBC’s adaptive management program and Site Specific Management Plan process shall be used to further the conservation of the species including but not limited to, introduction of the plant into suitable locations on TNBC reserve sites.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-29 April 2003
(2) TNBC shall monitor any known populations of plant Covered Species within the NBHCP area.
o. Sanford’s Arrowhead
(1) TNBC shall evaluate the potential for, and as appropriate, implement measures to further the conservation of Sanford’s arrowhead within the NBHCP’s reserve system through appropriate means,. In the event preconstruction surveys or other scientific documentation indicate impacts to the Delta Tule Peas as a result of authorized development, the TNBC’s adaptive management program and Site Specific Management Plan process shall be used to further the conservation of the species including but not limited to, introduction of the plant into suitable locations on TNBC reserve sites.
(2) TNBC shall monitor any known populations of plant Covered Species within the NBHCP area.
p. Other Covered Plant Species
TNBC shall evaluate the potential for, and as appropriate, implement measures to further the conservation of covered plant species within the NBHCP’s vernal pool areas or its wetland reserve system through appropriate means,. In the event preconstruction surveys or other scientific documentation indicate impacts to Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop, Sacramento orcutt grass, Slender orcutt grass, Colusa grass and/or legenere as a result of authorized development, the TNBC’s adaptive management program and Site Specific Management Plan process shall be used to further the conservation of the species including but not limited to, introduction of the impacted plant species into suitable locations on TNBC reserve sites. Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop, Sacramento orcutt grass, Slender orcutt grass, Colusa grass and legenere into vernal pool areas or other suitable locations in the NBHCP area.

C. WATER AGENCIES’ CONSERVATION MEASURES
The following provisions were developed through preliminary consultations between the NBHCP Permittees, the Water Agencies and the Wildlife Agencies. At such time as the Water Agencies seek Incidental Take Permits through this NBHCP, the following covered activities and conservation measures will be reviewed and revised as determined necessary by the Wildlife Agencies.

The Water Agencies (RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual collectively) shall employ various conservation measures to avoid and minimize take of Covered Species during the Water Agencies’ operations and maintenance. Described below are the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities and specific measures to be employed by the Water Agencies to avoid, minimize and mitigate take of Covered Species.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-30 April 2003

1. Water Agencies’ Covered Activities
The Water Agencies’ respective Section 10(a)(I)(B) and Section 2081 permits shall provide incidental take coverage for the following Operations and Maintenance (O&M) activities undertaken by the Water Agencies or their authorized agents, as noted in Section I.N.2 and restated here:
(1) De-silting
(2) Excavation and re-sloping of ditches and channels
(3) Deposition of ditch and canal spoils materials on adjacent property (4) Placement of fill material
(5) Control of vegetation in and around canals, ditches, and drains by mowing and other measures to provide necessary operation and maintenance of canals as needed which would be presented to the Wildlife Agencies on a three year basis for review and approval. (6) Construction and improvement with no significant increase to the existing footprint, of flood control and water conveyance facilities, water ditches, canals, pumphouses or maintenance facilities, and other ancillary facilities that are owned or operated by RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual

2. Water Agencies’ Facilities
The water conveyance systems of RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual consist of over 247 miles of ditches and canals that provide habitat for the giant garter snake and other Covered Species. The Water Agencies’ existing water delivery and drainage system is depicted in Figure 3. One component of the conveyance system consists of a series of drains that are owned and maintained by RD 1000. RD 1000 is charged by California law to maintain its drainage in its service area. Another component of the conveyance system consists of irrigation canals that are owned, operated and maintained by Natomas Mutual a non-profit mutual company. In many areas of the Basin, however, Natomas Mutual utilizes portions of the RD 1000 system to convey surface water to its customers. Operation and maintenance of the existing water conveyance system in the Natomas Basin is critical for the Water Agencies to fulfill their obligations in their respective areas.

Maintenance by the Water Agencies of the conveyance system in the Natomas Basin is, and has been, limited historically by practical considerations, including economic and physical constraints. Natomas Mutual is a non-profit company, and funding for RD 1000 comes from property owner assessments within RD 1000's service area. Staff at both agencies who are available for operations and maintenance are limited in number. As a practical matter, these constraints tend to prevent intensive maintenance of large portions of the water conveyance system in Natomas Basin during any given year. Thus while maintenance of canals, ditches and drains in the Natomas Basin is an important function for both RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual, intensive maintenance by the Water Agencies to maximize agricultural irrigation and flood control services throughout the Basin each year is not always feasible. In light of these constraints, the Water Agencies’ primary operations and maintenance efforts during any given year focus on keeping the water NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-31 April 2003
conveyance systems functioning in a manner that ensures timely movement of irrigation water for agricultural purposes, and drainage of agricultural water and urban flows from lands within the Basin.

Although operations will vary from year to year, RD 1000's and Natomas Mutual’s operations and maintenance activities in prior years underscore the limited extent of such activities during any given year.

For instance, in 1999, RD 1000 worked on a total of 26.5 miles of drains, canals, and channels, of which RD 1000 desilted 19 miles of the system, and resloped 11.5 miles. In 2000, RD 1000 worked on a total of 28.25 miles of drains, canals, and channels, which RD 1000 desilted 12.75 miles and resloped 14.5 miles. In both 1999 and 2000, RD. 1000 controlled weed growth on 75% of the drains with herbicide to control weed growth and mowed approximately 50% of the drains to a height of six inches or higher.

Records maintained by Natomas Mutual regarding operations and maintenance activities during prior years underscore the same point. In 1999, for example, Natomas Mutual replaced service gates, replaced or repaired canal gates and weirs, repaired pumps, as well as excavated and resloped portions of fourteen canals and ditches. In addition, Natomas Mutual purchased a gasoline tank for the headquarters yard. Natomas Mutual also rebuilt 2.2 miles of canals, and cleaned or sloped 5.4 miles of canals, affecting less than 3% of the Natomas Basin ditch system operated by Natomas Mutual and RD1000 . Finally, in any given year, Natomas Mutual generally limits its use of herbicides primarily to maintenance roads. (Note: use of herbicides, rodenticides and pesticides is not a Covered Activity of the Water Agencies for purposes of the NBHCP and related incidental take permits.) Although activities vary from year to year, the activities described above are typical of RD 1000's and Natomas Mutual’s operation and maintenance activities.

Minimizing and avoiding impacts associated with maintenance activities, to the extent feasible, is the continuing goal of the Water Agencies, as well as of the Plan itself. Current operations and maintenance activities by the Water Agencies are the result of previous efforts by various affected stakeholders to establish guidelines or “best management practices” (“BMPs”) for water users in the Sacramento Valley.

These efforts culminated in 1996, with the release of a report prepared by Sacramento Valley water users, USFWS, and CDFG entitled “Operation and Maintenance Guidelines for Sacramento Valley Water Users Having Verified Giant Garter Snake Populations” (“Guidelines Report”). The Guidelines Report describes BMPs to minimize the impacts of operating and maintaining water conveyance systems in the Sacramento Valley on giant garter snakes inhabiting these systems. RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual participated in the development of the BMPs in the Guidelines Report.

In 1997, the Water Agencies proactively adopted the Guidelines Report BMPs as standard procedure for operations and maintenance activities within their respective service areas. 1996 Guidelines Report BMPs have been adapted for purposes of the Plan. At such time as one or both of the Water Agencies seeks Incidental Take Permits through the NBHCP, the Water Agencies’operational guidelines and conservation measures described within this NBHCP will be reviewed and modified as necessary prior to issuance of their respective Section l0(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 permits. RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, USFWS, and CDFG recognize that the Water Agencies, in adhering to and implementing the BMPs and NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-32 April 2003
conservation measures described within a NBHCP, are obligated by statute to provide services in a manner consistent with public health, safety and welfare. Pursuant to that charge, in certain limited circumstances, particularly those involving flood-related events, RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, USFWS and CDFG recognize that public health and safety considerations may prevent compliance with the prescribed BMPs on a short-term, interim basis. Such temporary deviations are anticipated to have at most short term adverse impacts on the Covered Species.

3. Water Agencies’ Conservation Measures for Giant Garter Snake In addition to the Water Agencies’ avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures described herein and as modified prior to issuance of Incidental Take Permits, the Water Agencies shall comply with all other applicable Federal, State and local regulations that pertain to the proposed Covered Activities. a. Conservation Objectives for the Giant Garter Snake
The Plan’s conservation objectives for giant garter snake and other Covered Species dependent on similar habitat are set forth in Section I.C.1. and TNBC Conservation Strategy for giant garter snake and other wetland associated species is discussed in Section IV.C.3. With respect to the Water Agencies specifically, these objectives are designed: (a) to ensure and maintain the long-term integrity of the Natomas Basin giant garter snake population and other Covered Species dependent on similar habitat; and (b) to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts on the giant garter snake and other Covered Species caused by the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities. Consistent with their respective 10(a)(I)(B) and 2081 permits, the Water Agencies will, among other things, coordinate as appropriate with the other Permittees to achieve the biological goals and objectives of the Plan [Section I.C] for giant garter snake and other Covered Species dependent on similar habitat.
b. Canal and Ditch Maintenance
(1) Location of Ditch and Canal Maintenance Operations
RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual shall limit canal and ditch maintenance activities (activities involving excavation, desilting and/or resloping of channels) during any calendar year to not more than ten percent (10%) of the total miles of canals and ditches within each Water Agencies’ 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 Water Agencies, within the Water 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.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-33 April 2003
(2) De-Watering and Filling of Ditches and Canals
From May 1 to September 30 of any calendar year, before RD 1000, Natomas Mutual and agents acting on behalf of the Water Agencies, fill or caused to be filled any ditch or canal within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas, the Water Agencies and agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the Water Agencies, shall de-water or cause to be de-watered any existing canal or ditch prior to filling such canal or ditch with soil or other fill material. After de-watering any such canal or ditch, RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the Water Agencies, and water users within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas, shall wait a period of fifteen (15) days prior to filling such a de-watered canal or ditch.
(3) Vegetation Control
The measures set forth below shall govern activities by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents acting on behalf of the Water Agencies, within the Water Agencies' respective service areas, to control vegetation in and on canals ditches and drains within existing service areas of RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual as shown in Figure 3. RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, USFWS and CDFG recognize that the vegetation control measures set forth below may be used separately or in combination by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents acting on behalf of the Water Agencies within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas. Likewise, because RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents acting on behalf of the Water Agencies, within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas currently utilize many different types of vegetation control on canals, ditches and drains, the list of vegetation control measures set forth below is not intended to be exclusive.
(a) General Forage and Cover Preservation Strategies
Best management practices as delineated below, 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 and forage for other species.
(b) Mowing
For any mowing activity by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the Water Agencies, within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas to control terrestrial vegetative cover on top of, and inside, canal banks to the water line, the remaining vegetation shall be not less than 6 inches in height measured from the ground.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-34 April 2003
(c) Burning
Burning by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the Water Agencies, within the Water 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. (d) Detailed Management Plans
Recognizing that management and maintenance activities to be conducted by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual may be modified over time, the Water Agencies shall submit detailed Channel Management Plans for review and approval by the Wildlife Agencies. 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 as. The Water Agencies’ Management Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Wildlife Agencies on a three year basis. (e) Education Program
RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual, with the assistance and cooperation of USFWS and CDFG, shall develop and implement a giant garter snake education and awareness program. The program shall be designed to educate RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the Water Agencies within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas regarding how best to avoid adverse impacts to the giant garter snake and its habitat that could result from canal and ditch maintenance activities, vegetation control, vehicle traffic, ditch and canal fill-in procedures, emergency operations, and chemical applications for rodent control. With the participation of USFWS and CDFG, training shall also include information on the recognition of and the basic life history requirements or critical habitat criteria for the Covered Species. The education program shall also address other aquatic and upland associated Covered Species and their habitats including but not limited to information on how to distinguish burrowing owl versus rodent dens and avoidance measures for brooding, nesting and fledgling periods for bird species which utilize emergent aquatic vegetation. The education program shall be incorporated into new employee training programs and provided annually to regular operations and maintenance staff. RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual, with the cooperation of USFWS and CDFG, shall use their best efforts to implement the education program required by this section.
(f) Traffic
RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the Water Agencies, within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas, shall minimize unauthorized traffic on canal and ditch 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.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-35 April 2003
(4) Erosion Control
No plastic, monofilament, jute, or similar erosion control matting that could entangle snakes will be placed on a project site when working within 200 feet of snake aquatic or rice habitat. Possible substitutions include coconut coir matting, tactified hydroseeding compounds, or other material approved by the Wildlife Agencies.
c. Emergency Operations
As noted above, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual are obligated by statute to provide services within their respective service areas in a manner consistent with public health, safety and welfare. Accordingly, during an emergency, as defined below, public health and safety considerations may supersede compliance with the conservation measures set forth above. Such an emergency, in turn, may require alternative canal management practices by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the Water Agencies, within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas, that are different, and/or more extensive, than those set forth above. For purposes of the Water Agencies’ respective Permits, activities by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the Water Agencies, within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas during an emergency shall be deemed “emergency operations.”
For purposes of the Plan, and the Water Agencies’ respective Permits, emergency operations by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the Water Agencies, within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas, shall constitute a Covered Activity under the Plan and take associated with such emergency operations shall be authorized as follows:
(1) Declaration and Notice of Emergency
Emergency operations by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, and agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the Water Agencies within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas, shall be authorized only where RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual declare the existence of, and notify USFWS and CDFG of, an emergency. RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual shall notify the USFWS and CDFG of an emergency requiring emergency operations as soon as possible, but no later than five (5) business days after RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual declare the existence of an emergency. (2) Emergency Defined
An emergency shall mean a sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and imminent danger, demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage to, life, health, or property (including but not limited to crops), or essential public services. An emergency shall not include long-term projects undertaken by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-36 April 2003
Water Agencies, within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas, for the purpose of preventing or mitigating a situation that has a low probability of occurrence in the short-term. (3) Emergency Operations Defined
Emergency operations activities by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the Water Agencies, within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas, shall mean and shall be limited to activities and repairs to water conveyance facilities owned by RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual depicted in Figure 3 that are necessary in the short-term to restore or maintain services essential to the public health, safety or welfare within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas, and to the prevention or mitigation of loss of, or damage to, life, health, property (including crops) or essential public services. This definition includes all post-flood repairs necessary to achieve pre-flood service levels. (4) Duration of Emergency Requiring Emergency Operations Emergency operations activities by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the Water Agencies, within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas, shall only be authorized as long as the emergency requiring the need for such activities persists. The duration or continued existence of an emergency requiring emergency operations by RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, agents under the direct control and acting on behalf of the Water Agencies, and water users within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas, shall be determined by the party declaring the existence of an emergency.
(5) Emergency Operations and Avoidance and Minimization of Adverse Impacts RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, agents acting on behalf of the Water Agencies, within the Water Agencies’ respective service areas, shall devise and implement emergency operations activities to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to giant garter snake and other Covered Species to the extent, and at the time, feasible.
(6) Notice and Commencement of Emergency Operations
RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual shall notify USFWS and CDFG of the commencement of emergency operations within five (5) business days of the commencement of such activities. Such notification shall include a description of the emergency activities or repair work and an estimate of how long the emergency and activities and repair work responding to such emergency are expected to last. RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual shall notify USFWS and CDFG within five (5) business days when the emergency is over.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION V-37 April 2003

4. Reporting Requirements for Covered Activities
RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual shall provide to TNBC at the beginning of each calendar year all the following information: (1) a summary of Covered Activities conducted in the previous year; (2) deviations from the measures described above, if any, and the reasons for such deviations; (3) an annual summary accounting of the taking of any individual giant garter snakes or other Covered Species, if known, resulting from Covered Activities by RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual during the previous year; and (4) any other information deemed relevant by the Water Agencies. RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual shall also submit copies of their respective annual reports to the USFWS and CDFG.

5. Covered Activities and Adaptive Management
For purposes of the Plan, and the Water Agencies respective Section 10(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 permits, RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, USFWS and CDFG recognize that the conservation measures and reporting requirements set forth above may need to be revised periodically to reflect ongoing giant garter snake research or management principles pursuant to the Plan’s Adaptive Management Program as set forth in Section VI.F. Consistent with the Plan’s Adaptive Management Program, RD 1000, Natomas Mutual, USFWS and CDFG agree to cooperate in implementing any such revisions.

Any revisions to the reporting requirements or conservation measures for Covered Activities shall be guided by the work of qualified wildlife biologists and shall take into consideration the Water Agencies’ obligations to provide services to water users, land owners, and members of the public within their respective service areas in the Natomas Basin. In addition, any revisions to the Water Agencies’ reporting requirements or conservation measures for Covered Activities shall have, as their specific purpose, the further avoidance or minimization of take of giant garter snakes or other Covered Species that use or rely on the water conveyance systems in Natomas Basin that are owned or operated by RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual.

6. Federal Provision of Construction Incentives for Water Districts and Users The Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan states that financial incentives should be developed and made available to water districts and users for the following types of activities (see Draft Recovery Plan at pp. 70-71.):
(1) Funding for limited amounts of rock rip-rap along banks of levees, ditches, and canals that benefit giant garter snakes.
(2) Funding for the purchase and installation of gates and warning signs on country roads to control unauthorized vehicular traffic.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – TAKE AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATIONV-38 April 2003
(3) Funding for security. The Water Agencies have problems with trespassers using their property to dump urban waste, which can harm giant garter snakes. (4) Funding for water district employee training in methods of identifying and appropriately managing habitat for the giant garter snake.

For purposes of the Plan, and the Water Agencies’ respective Section 10(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 permits, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual shall participate in the above programs if and when such programs become available and, in the opinion of RD 1000 or Natomas Mutual, are feasible.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-1
April 2003
VI. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Described below are general guidelines related to the NBHCP and specific obligations that will be undertaken by the Plan Operator and the Permittees during the implementation of the NBHCP. The participants who may become Permittees through participation in this HCP include:

City of Sacramento (Land Use Agency or Land Use Permittee) Sutter County (Land Use Agency or Land Use Permittee)
RD 1000 (Water Agency or Water Agency Permittee)
Natomas Mutual Water Company (Water Agency or Water Agency Permittee) The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC, Plan Operator and TNBC Permittee) A. TERM OF PERMIT
The Section 10(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 permits are requested for and will be in effect for fifty years for each Permittee unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of the Plan or governing law. The term of the permits commences on the date the permits are issued. The permits may be renewed if continuing activity in the Natomas Basin so requires, in accordance with all regulatory or statutory requirements then in effect.

B. FUNDING

1. The Mitigation Fee
With the exception of funding for the planting of trees to mitigate for loss or disturbance of nest trees identified in Chapter V, which is a separate obligation of the Land Use Agencies, Mitigation Land acquisition, enhancement, management, and monitoring activities under the NBHCP will be funded by a one-time, up-front fee (the “Mitigation Fee”) to be levied upon an Authorized Development site (in acres) that is subject to mitigation based upon a ratio of 0.5 acres of mitigation land for every 1.0 gross acre of development (the “Mitigation Ratio”). The number of acres of the Authorized Development site will be described in the Urban Development Permit (i.e., a grading permit, notice to proceed, or authorization to commence grading). The Urban Development Permit shall clearly delineate the boundary identifying the parcels to be disturbed by the Authorized Development project. Each gross acre of Authorized Development will pay a Mitigation Fee that funds a half acre of mitigation land acquisition and associated habitat enhancement, management, endowment, administration, monitoring, etc. Table IV-1 below describes the components of the Mitigation Fee and the estimated cost established by the firm Economic Planning Systems (EPS) through its October 2002 fee study prepared for this NBHCP. Mitigation Fees shall be paid on the total gross acres of a development site excluding acres that are either: (1) previously developed land as shown on each local Land Use Agency's "Baseline Map" (see paragraph below); or (2) protected as habitat through conveyance of a conservation easement or fee title to TNBC pursuant to NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-2
April 2003
mitigation option #2 as described in this Section (see also Section 4.3 and Section 5.7.4 of the Implementation Agreement).

To ensure the fee is not charged to previously developed areas, the NBHCP Implementation Agreement for the City and the County include detailed maps showing which land parcels are subject to the fee and which parcels are exempt from the fee due to prior development of the site.

Open space remaining within developed areas will count as areas requiring mitigation, unless the USFWS and CDFG approve the use of such areas as suitable for mitigation and such land is transferred in fee to TNBC or is encumbered by a conservation easement in favor of TNBC.

Optionally, individual landowners may donate land to TNBC in lieu of payment of some or all of the acquisition component of the Mitigation Fee. In such cases, TNBC, USFWS and CDFG will determine which lands are acceptable, based upon reserve acquisition criteria noted in Section IV.C.2 of this NBHCP. If the amount of land transferred to TNBC is less than the mitigation land required for the public or private development project, the landowner is obligated to pay the outstanding balance of the Land Acquisition Fee component of the Mitigation Fee. If the amount of land transferred to TNBC is greater than the Mitigation Land required for the public or private development project, the landowner may choose one of the following credit options: 1) receive credit for the excess amount of land toward required Mitigation Land under the NBHCP for future Authorized Development of property(ies) owned by the landowner and covered by an Urban Development Permit; or 2) transfer credit to another specific landowner to satisfy all or a portion of the Land Acquisition Fee component of the required Mitigation Fee obligation for future Authorized Development of property(ies) owned by that landowner and covered by an Urban Development Permit. If either credit option is chosen, prior to the transfer of Mitigation Land being finalized, the landowner shall inform the appropriate Land Use Agency and TNBC in writing of their choice to receive or transfer credit and to whom they want to transfer such credit. The credit shall be calculated based on number of acres of land being transferred and not on the cost of the land. If the owner chooses to transfer land to TNBC in lieu of fees, the owner is obligated to pay the non-land acquisition components of the Mitigation Fees. All land proposed to be transferred in lieu of payment of the land acquisition component of the mitigation fees must be approved by the Wildlife Agencies prior to acceptance by TNBC.

Related to assurance of adequate funding for operations and maintenance in perpetuity, the NBHCP shall institute the following requirement: a Supplemental Endowment component of the Mitigation Fee shall be collected prior to issuance of an Urban Development Permit in an amount sufficient to fully fund the operation and maintenance, adaptive management, monitoring and changed circumstances obligations for Mitigation Lands in perpetuity, even after Authorized Development is fully built-out. All Authorized Development that has not been issued an Urban Development Permit by September 30, 2000, shall pay this fee. The catch-up fee ordinance shall also include this fee component. This Supplemental Endowment fee will be collected from all development authorized under the NBHCP as applicable and will be used to fund operations and maintenance, adaptive management, monitoring and changed circumstances NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-3
April 2003
for the system of reserve lands in perpetuity, particularly after development has occurred and additional fees are no longer being paid.

2. Mitigation Fee Amount/Adjustments
Historically, TNBC has contracted with EPS to complete analysis of the NBHCP fee. Such analysis was the basis for the initial Mitigation Fee under the City of Sacramento 1997 Natomas Basin HCP and for subsequent fee increases under that plan. EPS has now completed a fee analysis update of the implementation costs of this 2003 NBHCP.

EPS has developed a proforma financial model that analyzes the projected revenues and expenditures of the TNBC dependent on a forecast of development of the Natomas Basin and the corresponding habitat mitigation required. Based on various assumptions, the financial modes calculates the Mitigation Fee that would be required of new development. The financial model is currently composed of five component funds as described below:

Land Acquisition (LA ) Fee Component provides funding for habitat Mitigation Lands acquired by the Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNCB). The costs associated with land acquisition are the costs to acquire the land and transaction costs including legal costs. The fund also provides for a contingency in case land costs spike in any given year prior to updating the fee. Once all land is acquired in order to meet mitigation requirements, this fund will no longer be necessary.

Restoration and Enhancement (RE) Fee Component provides funding for restoring and enhancing Mitigation Lands acquired by TNBC. For example, the creation of managed marsh would be provided for by the revenues generated in the Restoration and Enhancement Fund. Once all land is acquired and subsequent restoration and enhancement occurs, this fund will no longer by necessary.

Administration and Operations & Maintenance (O&M) provides for the on-going operation and maintenance of the Mitigation Lands, including the costs to administer the funds collected from the Mitigation Fees. Revenues for this fund are comprised of Mitigation Fees (until all grading permits are issued), farming income, and hunting revenues. This fund is projected to exist in perpetuity. After year 45, as the finance model is currently structured, the Admin./O&M revenues are supplemented by interest earnings from the O&M Endowment Fund.

O&M Endowment Fund is structured as an endowment, such that fee revenue is accumulated as principal that will earn interest income over time. The interest income is utilized to subsidize funding for the Admin./O&M account after year 45.

Supplemental Endowment Fund is the newest account included in the financial model of the NBHCP.

This fund was established to accumulate revenue to allow TNBC to purchase up to 200 acres of land in advance of all fees being paid or to supplement annual purchases in the case that land prices spike NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-4
April 2003
dramatically in any given year. The financial model is intended to be a dynamic, fluid analysis of each of these funds and allows for interaction between the funds (excluding the O&M Endowment Fund principal).

For example, funds can be transferred to the O&M account into the land acquisition account to provide short term financing of land acquisition. Typically, it assumes that the transfer of funds will be repaid in a subsequent time period.

On-going Operation and Maintenance of the Mitigation Lands in Perpetuity. The interest earnings on the Endowment Fund, not the principal, will be used to funds on-going operations and maintenance of the Mitigation Lands. A nominal interest rate of 3 percent is assumed in the analysis.

TABLE VI- 1
COMPONENTS OF PROPOSED (2003) MITIGATION FEE PER ACRE DEVELOPED1 Land Acquisition $3,775
Restoration/Enhancement/Monitoring 893
Administration O & M 2,850
O & M Endowment Fund 1,900
Supplemental Endowment Fund 408
Fee Collection Administration 201
Base Mitigation Fee/Developed Acre (20032$) $10,027
1 For funds available to support management of each acre of mitigation land, multiply these figures by two.

Following adoption of the revised NBHCP, the newly established Mitigation Fee that addresses implementation of this NBHCP will be reviewed at least annually on or before March 1 of each calendar year the NBHCP is in effect. The Mitigation Fee shall be adjusted as necessary by the Land Use Agency Permittees to account for inflation or deflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or another suitable index. The Mitigation Fee also will be reviewed at least annually on or before March 1 of each calendar year the NBHCP is in effect and adjusted as necessary to reflect actual operation and land costs in the Basin. Fee adjustments will typically originate with a recommendation from TNBC to the Land Use Permittees, although any party may recommend such an adjustment. All adjustments to the Mitigation Fee within a particular local jurisdiction or jurisdictions must be approved by that affected jurisdiction or jurisdictions. Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee to account for inflation or deflation, or as necessary to maintain the 0.5-to-1 Mitigation Ratio and to meet ongoing management and monitoring costs, are provided for as part of the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program and therefore do not require amendment of the NBHCP or permits. (Each change in any element of the Mitigation Fees shall be documented in the TNBC Annual Report.)
NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-5
April 2003
It is acknowledged by the City and Sutter County that TNBC will acquire and manage Mitigation Lands based on the total amount of fees collected, and acres approved for Authorized Development by both Land Use Agency Permittees. Therefore, the failure of either jurisdiction to raise Mitigation Fees in a timely manner and in an amount sufficient to fully implement the NBHCP, including acquisition and management of Mitigation Lands, may result in the inability of TNBC to acquire and manage Mitigation Lands for all Authorized Development approved under the NBHCP. In that event, any shortfall in acquisition of Mitigation Lands or shortfall in funds available to cover the management and other plan implementation costs, shall be attributed solely to the Land Use Agency Permittee which has failed to adjust its Mitigation Fees as necessary to fully implement the NBHCP and may result in suspension or revocation of that jurisdiction’s permits. The City and Sutter County further acknowledge that notwithstanding the revocation of their individual federal permits, each remains obligated pursuant to 50 C.F.R. 17.22(b)(8) and 17.32(b)(8) to complete its mitigation obligations with respect to all Authorized Development approved by the jurisdiction prior to the revocation or other termination of its permits.

The Mitigation Fee is based on the funds necessary to assure the establishment of reserve blocks with 25% managed marsh habitat. The Mitigation Fee may also be adjusted periodically at the request of USFWS, CDFG or TNBC to account for NBHCP revisions, including revisions that (1) increase up to a total of 75 percent, the percentage of Mitigation Lands converted to managed marsh, or (2) result from ongoing monitoring program results in the Plan Area, determined at the Mid-Point and Overall Program Reviews, or any future USFWS Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan or CDFG Swainson's Hawk Recovery Plan (see Section VI.H below), or (3) based upon peer-reviewed scientific information provided such adjustments meet the requirements of Sections VI.E., Section VI.F. and Section VI.H. The fee shall also be increased as necessary to maintain land acquisitions at the 0.5-to-1 Mitigation Ratio and implement associated management (including restoration and enhancement), including changes identified through the Plan’s Adaptive Management Program, as appropriate to ensure the effectiveness of the operating conservation program.

Because the Mitigation Fee consists of individual components (e.g., land acquisition, restoration/enhancement/monitoring, etc.), the fee may need to be raised with respect to specific fee components periodically found to be deficient over the term of the permits. In other words, all components of the Mitigation Fee as described in Table VI-1 are subject to fee increases as necessary to ensure that the requirements of each individual component of the NBHCP are met.

The Land Use Agencies shall adjust the fee as necessary for all additional monetary obligations that may be required to fully implement the land acquisition, ongoing or permanent management (including restoration and enhancement), monitoring, database maintenance, Adaptive Management, program adaptation due to recovery plan adoption, Changed Circumstances and any other requirements of the NBHCP and IA, subject to the limitations described in Sections VI.E, VI.F., VI.H., and VI.K.1. Such fee increases are provided for under the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program and therefore do not trigger amendment of the Plan or permits. Table VI.3 below describes the fee adjustments approved through the history of the 1997 NBHCP.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-6
April 2003
TABLE VI - 2

HISTORY OF FEE
Date Adopted Fee Amount Per Acre of Development
October 31, 1995 - Original Interim Fee $2,240
September 2, 1997 $2,656
August 17, 1999 $3,292
September 12, 2000 $3,941
June 12, 2001
Mitigation Fee
Premium Fee (Settlement Agreement)
Total
$5,993
$4,028
$10,021
May 21, 20021
Mitigation Fee
Premium Fee (Settlement Agreement)
Total
$7,934
$4,028
$11,962
October 2003, EPS Estimated Fee for 2003
NBHCP
$10,027
1 The Settlement Agreement referenced in the above table was a limited term agreement that applied to specified development projects within the City of Sacramento. The Settlement Agreement Premium Fee does not apply to development authorized under this 2003 NBHCP.

3. Catch-Up Fee Ordinance
The City of Sacramento and Sutter County will 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 an Urban Development Permit (i.e., grading permit, notice to proceed or building permit) and the fee is increased prior to actual disturbance of the land. The City of Sacramento adopted such an ordinance on April 3, 2001 (Ord. No. 2001-013 ).

4. Endowment Fund / Other Revenues
The Endowment Fund provides for on-going administration and operations and maintenance expenses in the future years of the HCP, after all fee revenues have been collected and expended and also for permanent management of the Mitigation Lands following expiration of the permits. There is no change in the level of fee allocated to the Endowment Fund. The Conservancy carefully stewards its Endowment Fund, which as of the year 2001 holds in excess of $450,000.00. As urban development occurs, landowners pay an endowment fund fee, currently $1,500.00 per gross acre of development, as part of the total Mitigation Fee in order to supplement revenue available for ongoing management once all fees NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-7
April 2003
have been collected. The revenue from this fund is maintained in a separate account to accumulate earnings so that the interest earnings may be used to supplement operating revenues. The $1,500.00 per acre fee is based on projected interest earnings needed to fund approximately 13 percent of the projected operating costs at the end of the 50-year permit period. The fund balance at the end of the 50-year permit period is estimated to be approximately $6.7 million. Assuming an annual interest rate of 3 percent on the majority of funds (a 4 percent interest rate is assumed on $500,000), interest earnings at the end of the period are approximately $200,000 per year. The O&M fund is estimated to require approximately $137,000 of these endowment interest earnings per year to supplement O&M revenues beginning in year 2033. Therefore, annual interest earnings on the Endowment Fund are greater than the annual drawdown for the O&M fund.

The principal balance on the Endowment Fund will remain intact and allows the fund to be maintained in perpetuity so the mitigation lands can be managed in perpetuity.

Other Revenues
TNBC shall seek out additional revenues to augment the cost of managing the reserve system in perpetuity. Such revenues may include hunting, farm subsidies, cell tower revenues, etc.

5. Public/Private Partnerships
Within the conservation efforts directed by the NBHCP, there may also be efforts by the NBHCP Permittees to secure additional revenues from federal, state and other sources to supplement TNBC’s efforts within the Natomas Basin. The Permittees may prepare grant applications or seek federal or state funds to fund the incorporation into the NBHCP of future recovery measures or other conservation strategies identified in future recovery plans or new scientific information.

C. PHASING OF MITIGATION WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT
Described below are phasing obligations associated with the timing of TNBC reserve acquisitions and reserve habitat improvements. The NBHCP provides that to the maximum extent practicable, TNBC will complete habitat acquisition in advance of habitat conversion resulting from Authorized Development in the Natomas Basin in accordance with the following provisions:
(1) 200 Acres in Advance:

To assure adequate funding for land acquisition, the NBHCP has instituted the following requirements: Acquisition of Mitigation Land to mitigate development impacts of a particular property is desired prior to or concurrently with issuance of an Urban Development Permit (i.e., grading permit or notice to proceed) for that property. To ensure that Mitigation Lands sufficient to meet the mitigation obligation which attaches to all Authorized Development under the NBHCP, TNBC shall establish and maintain a 200 acre cushion of Mitigation Lands prior to the approval of any new Authorized NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-8
April 2003
Development by the City of Sutter County in the following manner. No Urban Development Permits for Authorized Development shall be issued after September 30 of each calendar year until TNBC has acquired Mitigation Lands which equal the number of acres necessary to cover the mitigation obligation attached to all prior Authorized Development under the NBHCP plus an additional 200 acres of Mitigation Lands. For example, if Urban Development Permits have been issued on a total of 4,000 acres of land by September 30th in a given year (the beginning of grading restrictions), then 2,200 acres of Mitigation Land (one-half of 4,000 acres plus 200 acres) must be in place before any additional Authorized Development may be approved and any additional Urban Development Permits may be granted by the City or Sutter County. Funding for the initial purchase of 200 acres in advance of the issuance of Urban Development Permits may come from NBHCP Mitigation Fees, State or Federal grant money, or other sources of revenue available to TNBC. However, State and Federal grant money may not be used to offset the Mitigation Fee for Authorized Development. (2) Managed Marsh:

Under the 1997 HCP, TNBC was directed to acquire an initial 400 acres of reserve land.

This obligation was completed on May 17, 1999. A provision under the 1997 HCP, and carried forward to this NBHCP, requires that not later than five (5) years after acquisition of these lands, the entirety of the 400 acres, or equivalent acreage, must be converted to or be in managed marsh, unless otherwise approved by the USFWS and CDFG. The 400-acre managed marsh requirement shall be satisfied irrespective of how many of the local Land Use Agencies ultimately obtain permits. In other words, if only a single jurisdiction has obtained a permit and wishes to proceed with development authorizations within its permit area, that Land Use Agency shall be responsible for satisfying the initial 400-acre managed marsh requirement within the Plan Area. (3) Following satisfaction of the requirement to convert the initial 400 acres of managed marsh, TNBC shall continue to convert a portion of all Mitigation Lands to managed marsh consistent with the following guidelines. The proportion of managed marsh within Mitigation Lands shall be based on total sites, and not necessarily on individual units of Mitigation Land. Following acquisition of Mitigation Land, TNBC is allowed one year to complete a Site Specific Management Plan (SSMP) for the site. Within three years of SSMP approval, TNBC shall complete site improvements, including managed marsh conversion as appropriate.

D. ACCOUNTING OF MITIGATION LAND
Each Land Use Agency shall collect Mitigation Fees prior to issuance of an Urban Development Permit (i.e., grading permit or notice to proceed) and promptly transfer the fees to TNBC, identifying by NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-9
April 2003
name, location and acreage, each project for which fees have been collected. TNBC shall record collection of fees from Land Use Agencies in chronological order, crediting the oldest project to have paid all required components of the Mitigation Fees with the Mitigation Lands TNBC acquired. Compliance with Phasing of Mitigation with Respect to Development (Section VI.C above) must be satisfied with respect to the entire Plan Area and not for individual Land Use Agency’s Permit Areas. If TNBC falls behind on acquiring Mitigation Land, then TNBC must notify all Land Use Agencies and TNBC may not accept additional Mitigation Fees until acquisition of Mitigation Land is in compliance with Section VI.C. The Land Use Agencies shall not allow any development to proceed under the Incidental Take Permits where TNBC has not accepted Mitigation Fees or Mitigation Lands for the development project. Development of lands for which Mitigation Fees have been accepted by TNBC, and which has met all other requirements of the NBHCP would be allowed to proceed under the Incidental Take Permits.

Percentage of Managed Marsh:

A key NBHCP requirement is that at least 25 % of habitat Mitigation Lands be established as managed marsh, unless the USFWS requires otherwise based on its future Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan, ongoing monitoring results, or other new peer-reviewed scientific information. Thus, TNBC will, in its annual report (see Section VI.G below), specify the acreage, location, and type of reserve land (i.e., rice land versus marsh), and the percentage of each with respect to the total lands acquired to date. The 25% managed marsh requirement applies to the entire Natomas Basin collectively (i.e., to all Land Use Agency jurisdictions and Permit Areas), not to each Permit Area individually.

Out of Basin Mitigation Land:

The NBHCP allows for a maximum of 20 percent of the Mitigation Lands to be acquired in Area B outside of the Natomas Basin under certain conditions defined in Chapter IV.2.b, with approval of USFWS and CDFG. TNBC shall account for all acreage acquired in Area B to ensure that the total amount of such lands does not exceed 20 percent of the total Mitigation Lands.

Metro Air Park:

While Metro Air Park (MAP) is not a Permittee under this NBHCP, there is an accounting relationship that must be considered. Under a separate HCP, and subject to the provisions of that HCP, MAP will utilize TNBC for acquisition and management of habitat reserves. MAP will rely on the County of Sacramento to collect Mitigation Fees, and the County will convey these fees to TNBC. Additionally, TNBC will include information on MAP’s urban development and associated habitat mitigation within the TNBC Annual Report. Fees collected by TNBC on behalf of Planned Development in the MAP HCP shall be credited along with fees collected by both Land Use Permittees in chronological order, with the first project among MAP or either Land Use Permittee to have paid Mitigation Fees credited with the habitat Mitigation Lands acquired by TNBC and credited to MAP’s mitigation obligation.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-10
April 2003
Land in Lieu of Fees:

With respect to each project proponent who elects to transfer Mitigation Lands in lieu of the Mitigation Land acquisition fee component of the Mitigation Fees, once TNBC, USFWS and CDFG have approved transfer of the lands, and the other Mitigation Fees have been paid by the project proponent, the project may proceed. TNBC will keep a record of the name, location, and acreage of the project and the Mitigation Lands transferred to TNBC on behalf of the project. That information will be presented in the TNBC annual report.

The findings of the annual accounting shall be published within the TNBC Annual Report described within Section VI.G. Additional data to be included within the Annual Report are described in Section VI.F.

E. MONITORING OF THE NBHCP
Monitoring is an essential element of all HCP’s that is designed and implemented to provide the information necessary to assess compliance and project impacts, and verify progress toward the biological goals and objectives for the Plan’s Covered Species and habitats. Monitoring efforts must be designed to adequately direct the results of the adaptive management strategy. Integrating the results of NBHCP’s monitoring program into the adaptive management strategy is essential. The monitoring efforts play an essential role in determining whether the chosen management strategy(s) is providing the desired outcome (i.e., achieving the biological goals of the HCP). Monitoring shall be performed for the duration of the permit and in perpetuity per the terms of the Plan.

An effective monitoring program provides information to: (1) evaluate compliance; (2) determine if biological goals and objectives are being met; and (3) provide feedback information, including assessing changed circumstances, for adaptive management. The monitoring program will reflect the measurable goals and objectives of the NBHCP, and be flexible enough to allow modifications, if necessary, to obtain the appropriate information.

However, much like adaptive management, it is necessary to make a distinction between the obligations of the NBHCP to provide and fund monitoring of the success of its mitigation efforts and the broader statutory obligations of the Wildlife Agencies with respect to recovery plans for the Covered Species. The NBHCP and its monitoring provisions are not to be confused with the collection of scientific data needed for a recovery plan and are not intended to be a replacement for the broad spectrum monitoring that may be contained in recovery plans which address a much larger geographic area and have a broader focus. Consequently, while the NBHCP monitoring will coincidentally assist with the recovery of the Covered Species by monitoring the Covered Species within the Mitigation Lands and those lands within the Natomas Basin to provide a baseline, the NBHCP monitoring provisions will not and are is not intended to provide all the necessary monitoring measures for broader recovery plan purposes.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-11
April 2003
Two related but separate types of monitoring programs are required under the NBHCP. First, Compliance Monitoring documents Permittee activities and ensures that NBHCP Permittees complete obligations as specified within the NBHCP. These obligations vary between Permittees, based upon their specific obligations. This NBHCP, within the following section, specifies the Compliance Monitoring obligations of the Permittees. Second, a Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Plan measures the biological success of the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program. The Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Plan provides the biological data necessary to guide and direct the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program.

This NBHCP, within the following sections, provides guidelines for preparation of the Biological Monitoring Plan that will be completed after NBHCP adoption.

1. Compliance Monitoring
Compliance monitoring is verifying that the Permittees are carrying out the terms of the NBHCP, the IA and the associated permits. TNBC will be the primary entity responsible for compiling, retaining and making available to the Wildlife Agencies data on compliance with the provisions and obligations contained within the NBHCP and the associated IA. The Land Use Agency and Water Agency Permittees shall conduct Compliance Monitoring and report to TNBC on their compliance and the compliance of parties operating under their control and their Permits with regard to the Permittees obligations under the NBHCP, including implementation of NBHCP take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures. Compliance Monitoring will include the status of the implementation of the NBHCP terms and conditions (e.g., financial responsibilities and obligations, management responsibilities, and other aspects of the incidental take permits, HCP and the IA). Within the Implementation Annual Meeting, TNBC will report to the other Permittees, USFWS and CDFG on the progress of the HCP conservation strategy. TNBC, the Land Use Agencies’ and the Water Agencies’ compliance with the NBHCP obligations will be reported within the TNBC Annual Report.

Described below are provisions related to Compliance Monitoring that will apply to the noted parties if and when Incidental Take Permits are issued to the individual party. For instance, Compliance Monitoring data for Water Agencies’ activities shall not be required until such time as the Water Agencies apply for and receive permits. Until that time, TNBC will annually contact the Water Agencies and request information on the Water Agencies’ canal and ditch maintenance activities. Such information, as provided voluntarily by the Water Agencies, shall be published annually by TNBC. a. The compliance monitoring accounting by TNBC of Mitigation Lands shall quantify:
(1) Annual acquisitions:
a. Acreage (annual incremental and cumulative)
b. Location (e.g., within Swainson’s hawk zone, within the Basin) c. Land use type/Condition (e.g., vegetation type, vernal pool, Swainson’s hawk potential nest habitat, rice land, alfalfa).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-12
April 2003
(2) Take of Covered Species and impacts to habitat (note: no take of habitat; however, habitat disturbance results in take) resulting from implementation of the TNBC Site Specific Management Plans or Covered Activities (including any specimens taken for scientific purposes).
(3) Implementation of Incidental Take avoidance measures:
a. Preconstruction surveys and avoidance measures used pre- and post ground- disturbing activities within Mitigation Lands
b. Take avoidance implemented during maintenance and management c. Success or failure in implementing take avoidance measures d. Recommendations for changing or improving take avoidance measures. (4) Annual financial status
a. The amount and source of funds collected
b. Funds expended or committed for acquisition
c. Funds held by TNBC in reserve
d. Summary of expenditures for and revenues from Mitigation Land management e. An accounting of the long-term endowment account
f. Funds allocated by TNBC to an entity other than TNBC for monitoring or management
g. An accounting of and determination of adequacy of funding for implementing the Operating Conservation Program (e.g.; acquisition, enhancement, land management activities, monitoring and database management). (5) Status of Mitigation Lands within TNBC reserves, including:
a. In-Basin:
i. Lands managed as marsh
ii. Lands managed as rice, including associated fallow land iii. Lands managed as upland reserves
b. Out-of-Basin in “Area B”
c. Mitigation for vernal pools, as appropriate.
(6) Status and condition of the Plan GIS and other databases; status and adequacy of SSMPs and monitoring plans, and any recommendations for revisions. b. The compliance monitoring accounting to be completed by each Permittee (City of Sacramento, Sutter County, RD1000, Natomas Mutual) shall quantify:
(1) The amount and location, in written and GIS mapping formats of all lands approved for Authorized Development by private parties for which Mitigation Fees were paid to TNBC in the preceding year including the following information:
a. Acreage (annual incremental and cumulative)
b. Location (e.g., within Swainson’s hawk zone, within HCP area) c. Type (e.g., vegetation type, vernal pool, Swainson’s hawk potential nest habitat).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-13
April 2003
(2) The amount and location of all lands approved for Authorized Development by public agencies (e.g.; public works projects) for which Mitigation Fees were paid to TNBC in the preceding year.
(3) An accounting of the taking of any individual giant garter snakes, Swainson's hawks, or other Covered Species, if known, as a result of Covered Activities in the Permit Areas in the preceding year, including any specimens taken for scientific purposes. (4) Implementation of Incidental Take avoidance measures:
a. Preconstruction surveys and avoidance measures used pre- and post ground- disturbing activities
b. Success or failure in implementing take avoidance measures c. Recommendations for changing or improving take avoidance measures. (5) Water Agencies’ shall provide an annual report of Covered Activities and implementation of conservation measures (see Section V.B.4 for additional reporting requirements). c. The Land Use Agencies shall prepare a pre-construction survey form that will be provided to biologists completing pre-construction surveys as required in Sections V.A.1 and VI.E.1 of this NBHCP. Within one year of issuance of permits in conjunction with this NBHCP, the Land Use Agencies shall, in consultation with the NBHCP TAC, prepare template forms for Pre- Construction Surveys. Following approval of survey forms by the Wildlife Agencies, these forms shall be utilized by biologists conducting pre-construction surveys for TNBC or for Authorized Development conducted under the Land Use Agencies’ take permits. Biological resource information developed in the course of CEQA documentation may help the Land Use Agencies determine which pre-construction surveys are appropriate. The following specific informational items are anticipated to be included within the pre-construction template form and shall serve as guidelines for pre-construction surveys for individual development projects completed prior to approval of the ultimate template form:
(1) Site description: Possible sub-items include: (1) current and historical land uses/habitats; (2) current and historical adjacent land uses/habitats; and (3) any vernal pools and seasonal wetlands located on or adjacent (within 250 feet) to the project site. (2) Recorded Covered Species occurences. Consult CNDDB, TNBC, records published in the NBHCP, etc. to document records of Covered Species on and near the project sit (3) Prior biological resources analysis. Summarize findings of prior biological resource analyses conducted on site pursuant to specific development project’s CEQA evaluation. (4) Results of botanical surveys. Possible sub-items include: (1) dates botanical inventories were conducted; (2) plant communities on site; (3) whether habitat for any Covered plant species occur on the site; and, (4) demonstration of compliance with any additional NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-14
April 2003
preconstruction surveys as required through prior review and/or environmental analysis conducted for the subject project.
(5) Results of reconnaissance surveys. Any species observed on site should be described and noted. Surveys should be appropriately timed so that they may detect Covered Species for which habitat is found on the subject site. For example, surveys for legenere should be conducted between April and June because that is when the species blooms. Surveys conducted at other times of the year may not be capable of detecting the species. Other examples of appropriate timing of Covered Species surveys include, but are not limited to:
(1) if any trees are on or in the vicinity of the project site, surveys must be timed to detect SH nesting; and (2) if burrows are present, surveys need to be timed to detect burrowing owl nesting. In cases where the timing of surveys affects their outcome, the surveys may be conducted the year prior to construction activities. However, nesting birds must be surveyed for in the year that construction activities occur, where potential nesting habitat exists on the project site.
(6) Conclusions of surveys and research. Report Covered Species that do occur or may potentially occur on site (potential occurrence should be based upon habitat on or adjacent to the site and proximity of known localities or occurrences of the species). (7) Project activities that could affect Covered Species. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) dewatering; (2) filling or relocating a canal; (3) removal of a nest tree; (4) work within ½ mile of a nest tree; (5) removal of burrows used by owls, (6) work near burrows; (7) any work near other nesting bird species; (8) fill of wetlands, (9) work near a wetland that could change the wetland’s hydrology or water quality. (8) Recommendations. The biologist should recommend appropriate avoidance and minimization measures based upon the habitats that occur on or adjacent to the project site, the species that may occur on or adjacent to the project site, and the types of activities that could affect Covered Species. Measures to avoid and minimize take of Covered Species associated with Authorized Development to be permitted by the Land Use Agencies are identified in Section V.A. of this NBHCP and measures to avoid and minimize take of Covered Species by TNBC activities are identified in Section V.B of this NBHCP and shall be included in the biologists’ report.

2. Biological Effectiveness Monitoring
Biological Effectiveness Monitoring evaluates the effects of Authorized Development and other Covered Activities and determines whether the effectiveness of the Operating Conservation Program of the NBHCP is consistent with the assumptions and predictions made when the NBHCP was developed and approved; in other words, is the NBHCP achieving the biological goals and objectives. TNBC will NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-15
April 2003
be the responsible party for completing the effectiveness monitoring program described herein and the results of these monitoring efforts shall be published in the TNBC Annual Report. In order to ensure consistent application of monitoring techniques both upon TNBC reserves and throughout the Natomas Basin, TNBC shall prepare a comprehensive Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Plan.

In order to measure the effectiveness of meeting the biological goals and objectives, the Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Plan shall be designed to track population trends of the Covered Species and to evaluate the effectiveness of the Mitigation Land design, restoration and management in providing habitat and supporting the Covered Species. The monitoring plan shall track population trends on TNBC Mitigation Lands as well as at some selected non-reserve sites within the Natomas Basin. Non-reserve sites will serve as controls to compare success of Mitigation Land design and management in supporting and increasing the abundance of Covered Species. Monitoring of non-reserve sites also may provide information to guide future acquisitions and to determine presence and/or use of corridors between reserves. Selection of non-reserve sites to be monitored will be determined during preparation of the monitoring plan and may differ for the various Covered Species, depending on the management and information needs for those species.

The Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Plan is divided into two primary components. An overall NBHCP Biological Monitoring Program evaluates the overall success of Covered Species within the Natomas Basin. This program will include limited monitoring of Covered Species at locations outside of TNBC Mitigation Lands, as well as periodic evaluations of Covered Species within TNBC Mitigation Lands. Site Specific Biological Monitoring Programs will be developed for each block of contiguous TNBC Mitigation Lands. The Site Specific Biological Monitoring Programs will be developed in conjunction with, and included within, the TNBC Site Specific Management Plans. In combination, the NBHCP Biological Monitoring Program and the Site Specific Biological Monitoring Programs constitute the NBHCP Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Plan.
a. NBHCP Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program
Within two (2) years of issuance of Permits under this NBHCP, TNBC shall prepare a detailed NBHCP Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program, consistent with the NBHCP’s monitoring requirements. This Monitoring Program will be developed in consultation with the NBHCP TAC.

Development of the Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program shall include peer and public review.

TNBC shall begin implementing the Monitoring Program upon approval of the program by the Wildlife Agencies. The NBHCP Monitoring Program shall include, but is not limited to, the following components and guidelines for monitoring activities:
(1) Annual surveys of the TNBC Permit Area (including TNBC reserves and selected non- reserve area accessible to TNBC) to determine the status of the Swainson’s hawk, including presence, density, and reproductive success.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-16
April 2003
(2) Annual assessment of the status of giant garter snake populations within the Natomas Basin. Annual updates of information of locations of giant garter snakes within the Basin as well as other Covered Species.
(3) Density and distribution sampling of Covered Species on TNBC reserve lands every five years. The first five year sampling of Covered Species shall be completed within one year of issuance of Permits under this NBHCP, and subsequently every five years thereafter.

Once a Covered Species is found to occupy a TNBC reserve, yearly monitoring of that Covered Species on the reserve it occupies and any adjacent reserves, as appropriate, will be implemented.
(4) The NBHCP Biological Monitoring Program shall specify the number of control locations within the Basin but outside of NBHCP Mitigation Lands that shall be monitored. These sites shall be monitored every year for Swainson’s hawk and giant garter snake, and every five years to satisfy monitoring of species throughout the TNBC Permit Area other than Swainson’s hawk and giant garter snake. Such sites shall be limited to a set of locations that, to the extent that such sites exist in the Basin and are physically accessible, collectively provide suitable habitat to support all Covered Species and shall allow the following:
(a) Determination of the comparative success of Covered Species on non-reserve sites versus on reserve sites.
(b) General documentation of Covered Species presence.
(c) Determination of whether the Mitigation Lands are supporting the general populations of Covered Species found within the Basin.
(5) Annual assessment and identification of canals and ditches which provide GGS habitat connectivity within and between reserves. This assessment shall be coordinated with the Water Agencies and the Wildlife Agencies. Additionally, the Wildlife Agencies and the Land Use Agencies will notify TNBC of any known applications under the ESA or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act affecting canals. (See also connectivity discussion included in Chapter IV, Section d).
(6) Evaluations of the Operating Conservation Program and its progress toward its intended biological goals.
(7) The Monitoring Program shall provide specific details on the following subjects:
(a) Monitoring methodologies and protocols to be implemented (b) Timing of monitoring efforts, including frequency and duration of monitoring efforts (c) Locations of monitoring, and methodology used to select locations (d) Personnel required
(e) Effort required and methods of documenting and determining monitoring effort (f) Methods of analyses of monitoring data
(g) Information expected to be gained from monitoring
(h) Thresholds at which management must be modified to assure success of the conservation plan.
(8) The Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program shall establish a standardized format for annual monitoring and five-year monitoring conducted on behalf of TNBC.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-17
April 2003
b. Site Specific Biological Monitoring Programs
TNBC shall include within each Site Specific Management Plan (SSMP) a Biological Monitoring Program that guides monitoring activities within each TNBC Mitigation Lands reserve. The SSMP Biological Monitoring Programs will include specific provisions to address monitoring needs which, in the judgement of TNBC and the Wildlife Agencies are necessary to fully evaluate and understand the efficacy of any specific management action. Each Site Specific Biological Monitoring Program shall be tailored to the individual resources of the subject Mitigation Lands and shall supplement monitoring guidelines provided in the NBHCP Biological Monitoring Program.

The SSMP Biological Monitoring Programs shall be prepared following the Wildlife Agency’s approval of the NBHCP Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Plan. SSMP Biological Monitoring Programs for new reserve acquisitions shall be prepared within the reserve’s SSMP and shall be subject to the same requirement for timing of completion as the SSMP.

When Mitigation Land is acquired directly adjacent to an existing TNBC reserve, the SSMP Biological Monitoring Program for the existing reserve will be reviewed to determine whether it is applicable and appropriate for the new acquisition. Upon acquisition of new Mitigation Lands directly adjacent to a TNBC reserve with an approved SSMP and Biological Monitoring Program, the NBHCP shall determine either: 1) the existing Biological Monitoring Program is applicable to the newly acquired Mitigation Land as is; 2) the existing Biological Monitoring Plan requires modification to address the newly acquired Mitigation Land; or 3) a new Biological Monitoring Program for the newly acquired Mitigation Land is required due to substantial differences between existing reserve and the newly acquired Mitigation Lands.

Each SSMP Monitoring Program will be reviewed and approved by TNBC in consultation with the TAC prior to implementation. In addition, TNBC shall, where possible, consult with appropriate species experts in the development of monitoring plans, including USFWS, CDFG, academic and U.S.

Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division (BRD) staff. In cases where TNBC has acquired Mitigation Lands prior to adoption of this NBHCP, TNBC shall complete Site Specific Biological Monitoring Programs for such lands within two years of issuance of permits under this NBHCP. Guidelines to be included within the SSMP Monitoring Plans include, but are not limited to:
(1) The Covered Species or management action for which monitoring is needed. (2) Specific monitoring goals and/or objectives.
(3) Requirement to complete Covered Species and habitat baseline inventory, using approved species appropriate sampling protocol, of each Reserve within the first year following acquisition and prior to any implementation of SSMP provisions. (4) Annual assessment of habitat conditions on TNBC reserve lands, including an assessment of Covered Species habitats, a qualitative description of habitat condition, and identification and estimated cover or numbers of invasive species.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-18
April 2003
(5) Specific monitoring protocols and statistically supportable data analysis methodology to be used, based on the considerations and instructions discussed in this section.

3. Design of Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Programs a. General Guidelines
The task of designing or coordinating the design of Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Programs, both overall NBHCP and Site Specific, will be the responsibility of TNBC, in consultation with the TAC and qualified species experts. Management objectives for the reserve system or other objectives determined by TNBC, in consultation with the TAC, will determine whether qualitative or quantitative monitoring methods will be employed and what level of confidence in the results is required. The following questions apply to the development of both the NBHCP Biological Monitoring Program and SSMP Biological Monitoring Programs and will be considered by TNBC as a framework for ensuring that realistic and reasonable monitoring decisions will be made: (1) what kind and quality of information can be gathered with the time and resources available?; (2) what are the possible outcomes and answers such an investigation might reveal?; (3) what decisions will be triggered by different outcomes and answers?; (4) how are these decisions different than those that would be made with existing information?; and (5) what effect will continuing the status quo have on species status and on options for future action? (CDFG 1993).

Therefore, all monitoring plans must explicitly address the levels of variation and uncertainty that are associated with the survey method and how this will influence decision making.

As described above, sometimes a consideration of qualitative survey and inventory results will be sufficient, providing TNBC with confidence to either pursue additional information or proceed with specific actions, including adjustments under the Plan’s Adaptive Management provisions, on the basis of information they already have. At other times, a more formal analysis of quantitative survey results may be needed. In either case, monitoring decisions under the Plan must be made after answering the questions listed above in the context of the particular management objective. For example, the monitoring interval for focused monitoring efforts would be determined by the longevity and generation time of the Covered Species of interest, or the expected periodicity of specific biological or climatic events or other interactions in which the species may be involved. Monitoring programs might also consider the conditions of the habitat being monitored and the habitat necessary for species dispersal.

Biological Effectiveness Monitoring shall be conducted by TNBC and the results of such monitoring will be published in conjunction with TNBC’s Annual Report. The Biological Effectiveness of the NBHCP will be analyzed through the review and analysis of Annual Biological Monitoring reports and Five-Year Monitoring reports, and through the comparison of these surveys with the Baseline Surveys conducted for each TNBC reserve. In compiling and publishing Biological Monitoring data, TNBC shall produce single reports that address all covered species as determined appropriate, rather than producing an individual report for each of the Covered Species. Such comprehensive reports may include as attachments additional studies such as basinwide evaluations of giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-19
April 2003
Due to the lack of documented occurrences of numerous Covered Species within the Natomas Basin and in Area B, Biological Monitoring efforts shall vary in depth and detail. For instance, Rarely Occurring Species such as Delta tule pea are not known to exist within the Plan Area. Until such time as Delta tule pea or other Rarely Occurring Covered Species are found in the Basin, surveys for such species shall be cursory and discussions within various monitoring reports shall be brief. If such a species becomes established or is later discovered in the Basin, future surveys would focus on locations with identified populations.

All Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Programs will include thresholds, at which Mitigation Land management must be modified through the Adaptive Management Process to assure success of the Operating Conservation Program. These points will be broad enough to assure that actions are not taken unnecessarily, but specific enough to prevent catastrophic effects to the Covered Species or other aspects of the Plan.

The NBHCP does not identify the specific activities to be conducted within the Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Programs. However, the criteria and guidelines provided in the following sections provide direction for developing suitable NBHCP Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Programs. b. Utilization of Existing Data Sources and Monitoring Protocols TNBC shall utilize all existing information, including information on the numbers, distribution, occurrence, or abundance of the other Covered Species that may be available in documenting baseline species presence. In addition, survey protocols for Covered Species shall be incorporated within and shall guide preparation of the NBHCP Biological Monitoring Programs. Information sources could include USGS surveys (in addition to USGS giant garter snake survey information), Species status reviews, Breeding Bird Survey, Audubon Christmas Bird Counts, etc. Other sources of information also may include working groups and species experts, such as the Interagency Western Pond Turtle Working Group, Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, etc.
c. Available Monitoring Methods
Described below is a suite of monitoring methods that may be incorporated within TNBC Biological Monitoring Programs. This list of methods is neither comprehensive nor mandatory. Rather, these methods shall be considered as TNBC, the TAC and the Wildlife Agencies prepare the Biological Monitoring Programs.

Standard Inventory Methods
Several standard techniques are available for monitoring the status of the NBHCP’s Covered Species across the reserve system through time. While the Plan does not require the adoption of a particular method or suite of methods, it strongly recommends that TNBC employ standard methods such NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-20
April 2003
as the ones listed below. Most of these techniques are widely used and have been tested in the field for years. They tend to require a relatively high time investment but, generally, can be conducted at a low cost with a minimum commitment of personnel.
(1) Visual encounter surveys (determines species richness, relative abundance). The time required depends on the number of Covered Species inventoried. (2) Calling bird censussing along strip transects (determines relative abundance). Personnel need to be familiar with the vocalizations.
(3) Replicated quadrant, transect, or patch sampling (determines density). The commitment of time and personnel with this method is relatively high because sampling is thorough. (4) Drift fences and trapping (determines relative abundance). These methods also have a relatively high cost and commitment of personnel.
(5) Surveys at breeding or nesting sites (determines nesting status, nesting success, and relative abundance). This is a cost effective inventory method.
(6) Mark-Recapture Studies. This technique is one of the main methods used by ecologists to estimate population size. Compared to most other monitoring methods described above, commonly employed mark-recapture methods are labor intensive and time consuming. This method should be used where it is essential to monitor a specific NBHCP objective or is the only reliable method for acquiring the necessary information (for example, mark- recapture is currently the best method for monitoring giant garter snake populations).

However, mark recapture studies may provide little data for widely dispersed or rarely occurring species where recapture probabilities are low. TNBC should take these factors into consideration before applying this to Covered Species other than giant garter snakes.

Supplemental Inventory Methods
The methods described below are less traditional monitoring methods. The literature on these methods, their strengths and weaknesses, and their underlying assumptions are less well developed than for the methods described in the section above. Therefore, these approaches may yield ambiguous results.

However, some or all of these methods may provide information augmenting the more standardized techniques discussed above and may be considered in designing NBHCP Biological Monitoring Programs.

However, TNBC in consultation with the TAC, should seriously consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of these approaches prior to employing them, and should periodically check the status of these methodologies in the scientific literature.
(1) Night driving/spotlighting (determines relative abundance, species richness). This method is low in cost and requires little training. Animals recently killed on roads can be collected as voucher specimens and for use in life history and population genetics studies. (2) Group activities and field trips (can determine relative abundance, species richness). This is also a low-cost method but requires a data coordinator. There is an added benefit of NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-21
April 2003
public outreach. Natural history classes from local universities, the National Audubon Society or other natural history societies could participate. d. Monitoring Guidelines for Individual Species or Types of Species Described in this section are guidelines for monitoring individual Covered Species or types of species covered under the NBHCP. These guidelines shall be considered by TNBC, the TAC and the Wildlife Agencies during the preparation of the NBHCP Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program and the Site Specific Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Programs.

Giant Garter Snake Monitoring
Methods similar to those currently being used by USGS-BRD may be used to accomplish monitoring goals for giant garter snakes. These methods include trapping surveys along with mark- recapture studies and habitat assessments. Trapping in conjunction with mark-recapture techniques can document presence of GGS and establish indices of relative abundance, as well as document the size/age distribution and provide data necessary to estimate survival and recruitment within populations (measures of population health and trends). Habitat assessments conducted in conjunction with survey efforts will assist in determining which habitat factors and types of restoration and management affect the presence and abundance of GGS. Finally, mark-recapture studies may provide valuable information on dispersal of individuals and document movement among reserves and other surveyed areas. Because effective GGS monitoring requires time and labor intensive trapping and survey efforts, basin wide surveys are not feasible.

However, sampling of multiple locations throughout the basin can be used to develop an abundance index of giant garter snakes. Methods for monitoring giant garter snake should include the following:
(1) Establish transects to be surveyed through use of modified floating minnow traps (Casazza, et al. 2000), supplemented with visual searching on foot. Locations of transects will be determined in development of the monitoring plan but will include:
(a) Permanent transects on TNBC reserve lands trapped in every year. (b) Permanent transects on non-reserve lands trapped in every year (transects should be established in each of the following areas: (north of I-80 and east of I-5/SR99; north of I-5 and west of SR99; and south of I-5 and west of I-5/SR99). (c) Additional non-reserve survey transects trapped on a rotating basis at least once every five years. These transects would be chosen to fill in gaps in GGS distribution information, to assess use of corridors between reserves, and increase detections of giant garter snakes necessary to determine population status and to detect dispersal, or to obtain specific information as information needs arise. (d) GGS monitoring outside of TNBC reserves shall be limited to locations where TNBC is granted access by the affected property owner(s) for purposes of species monitoring.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-22
April 2003
(e) All giant garter snakes captured and of appropriate size will be individually marked using PIT tags. All individual snakes also will be examined and measured according to current USGS protocols.
(f) Habitat assessments will be carried out for all transects trapped in a given year according to current USGS protocols.
(g) Out-of-basin reserves must be surveyed yearly when/if added, along with appropriate off-reserve out-of-basin transects. The off reserve out-of-basin transects would serve as the basis for comparison of the success of the out-of- basin reserve habitat restoration and/or management.

Swainson’s Hawk Monitoring
Surveys to determine the status of the Swainson’s hawk, shall document presence, density, and reproductive rate of the species. Swainson’s Hawk survey shall be conducted annually and shall address Mitigation Lands, as well as undeveloped land in the Natomas Basin. Monitoring for Swainson’s hawk outside of TNBC reserves shall be limited to sites within the Plan Area that can be visually observed from locations where TNBC or its authorized representatives are granted access by the affected property owner.

Avian Species Monitoring
The NBHCP covers six other bird species: Aleutian Canada goose, white-faced ibis, bank swallow, tricolored blackbird, loggerhead shrike, and burrowing owl. Because some of these species may be difficult to detect due to their transitory occurrence in the Natomas Basin, it may be necessary to monitor habitat characteristics as a surrogate to determine whether the conservation strategy is successfully providing habitat for these species. Additional surveys should also be carried out in order to attempt to detect actual presence of the species in the Basin both on and off Mitigation Lands, but because of sporadic occurrence of these species, may not provide enough data to statistically determine population trends.

Monitoring Programs for these bird species should include:
(1) Annual surveys of Covered bird species for wintering birds and for breeding birds on all reserve lands and at selected non-reserve locations. The monitoring plan will specify the locations of surveys and appropriate timing to increase chances of detecting the covered bird species based on their likely occurrence in the Basin. However these surveys are not intended to be exhaustive given the low probability of detecting some species regardless of effort. Rather, they are intended to indicate presence in the Basin or on reserve lands.

The monitoring plan will specify the number of days per year surveys will be conducted (currently, this is expected to require 7-14 days per year, but may be revised as determined by TNBC in consultation with the TAC and other species experts).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-23
April 2003
(2) Determine habitat characteristics needed to meet goals and objectives of providing habitat for the covered bird species and develop monitoring protocols to measure and monitor these characteristics.
(3) Where breeding colonies of the covered bird species have become established on reserve lands, TNBC will annually estimate the colony size and nesting success.

Vernal Pool Species Monitoring
If any Mitigation Lands have existing seasonal wetlands, those wetlands should be surveyed for presence of vernal pool crustaceans according to Service guidelines. These surveys should be completed on Mitigation Lands prior to any restoration activities that would fill or alter the wetland habitats on Mitigation Lands. Results of surveys for vernal pool crustaceans should be used to assist in preparation of restoration and management plans. Thereafter, any vernal pools on reserve lands, whether preserved or restored, should be monitored for the covered vernal pool species. Monitoring of vernal pool areas within the Mitigation Lands should include the following:
(1) Periodic surveys will be conducted for presence of listed or covered crustacean species according to Service protocols. Surveys will also be conducted for presence of any covered vernal pool plant species and amphibians. The monitoring plan will determine and specify the frequency of surveys necessary to monitor both preserved and restored pools. (2) Monitoring Programs will specify monitoring protocols to measure and monitor vernal pool habitat characteristics to determine the effects of management activities (such as grazing intensity, frequency, and duration) on the vernal pools.

Covered Plant Species Monitoring
The NBHCP covers a number of plant species not currently known to occur in the Natomas Basin.

Monitoring for these species will consist of the following:
(1) Within the first year after acquisition of a reserve, TNBC shall conduct a botanical inventory. The inventories should be conducted at the appropriate times of year when the target Covered Species are present and identifiable. Results of the inventory should identify areas on reserve lands that may support the covered plant species and should be the subject of future monitoring efforts. The result may provide habitat and plant community information that may be used in developing SSMPs. (2) Botanical inventories will be conducted periodically at intervals determined and specified in the Site Specific Biological Monitoring Programs. These inventories should target areas known to support covered plant species or previously identified to have the habitat NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-24
April 2003
characteristics likely to support the covered plant species, or areas restored or managed such that they are likely to support the Covered Species.

Rarely Occurring Species
It is expected that some Covered Species may occur very rarely in the Natomas Basin or may be very difficult to detect. Rarely occurring species include all plant Covered Species, all Covered Species associated with vernal pools, Bank swallow, California tiger salamander, Western spadefoot toad and Valley elderberry longhorn beetle. These species are considered rarely occurring due to the very limited vernal pool habitat found within the Basin and/or the lack of known occurences of these species within the Basin. For these species, direct abundance estimates of population sizes or relative abundance may not be possible because of low detection rates. In these cases, the Biological Monitoring Programs should include:
1) efforts to actually detect the species on reserve lands or locations within the Basin that have known populations of these species and for which TNBC is granted access to monitor; and, 2) a methodology for estimating the amount and suitability of habitat available and trends in those habitat characteristics. Because efforts to actually detect rarely occurring species may not yield any detections, extensive or exhaustive efforts may not be the best use of monitoring resources. Therefore, the monitoring plan will specify the relative amount of effort spent in actual detection effort versus effort in documenting and monitoring the amount and suitability of the habitat provided. In addition to overall biological monitoring conducted by TNBC, preconstruction surveys conducted by proponents of Authorized Development and TNBC will investigate the presence of rarely occurring species prior to disturbance of land for urban development or habitat reserve construction.

4. Review and Revision of the Biological Monitoring Programs The Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Programs may require periodic revisions as new methods become available or if monitoring methods are not yielding the expected information. Therefore, the Monitoring Programs and their effectiveness in measuring the success of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program also will be reviewed at each Midpoint Review. TNBC will revise the Monitoring Programs whenever review indicates revision is necessary to effectively monitor success in achieving the biological goals and objectives.

5. Monitor Summary Table
Provided below is a summary table that lists the various monitoring obligations to be conducted under the NBHCP. Generally, these obligations shall apply to TNBC, although any proponent of Authorized Development will be required to complete Pre-Construction Surveys prior to disturbance.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-25
April 2003
TABLE VI-3

SUMMARY OF TNBC MONITORING OBLIGATIONS
One Time Monitoring Efforts Related to Reserve Acquisition and Development Pre- Acquisition Survey Existing Conditions Assessment Pre-construction Survey and Monitoring
Pre-acquisition field
reconnaissance of site to
determine suitability of site as
habitat for covered species and the
type of habitat, and associated
species that may be present on
site.

This is a relatively simple overview
assessment and not a full
biological assessment. The
purpose of the reconnaissance is
to determine the potential or
limiting factors for establishment
of habitat to support covered
species.

See Section IV.C.2.d
Within Year 1 following acquisition, an
Existing Conditions Biological
Assessment . This Assessment shall
focus on habitat types present upon
the site. Information on observed
species (including botanical species)
shall be noted. This assessment shall
be a part of the SSMP. It will identify
habitat present on the site,
recommended additional habitat
preservation and enhancement
opportunities.

Specific attention shall be paid to the
suitability
and appropriateness of the
site for creation of habitat for re-
introduced species, specifically:

California Tiger Salamander
Spadefoot Toad
Western Pond Turtle
Vernal Pool Plants
Sanford Arrowhead
Delta Tule Pea and other covered
plants.

See Section IV.D.1.a
Not less than 30 days prior to
commencement of construction,
a pre-construction survey
shall
be conducted to determine the
status and presence, and likely
impacts to Covered Species.

Specific avoidance measures
as
necessary to address identified
impacts (such as nesting birds)
shall be developed and
monitored for effectiveness
during construction. (See
species specific avoidance
measures in the HCP).

See Sections V.B
Annual Monitoring Programs
General Reserve Specific Annual Monitoring Basin Wide
Connectivity Assessment.

Through periodic coordination
with the Water Agencies, monitor
any changes or actions related to
the canal system and report such
changes to the TNBC Board and
TAC for assessment of impacts,
and identification of adaptive
management efforts if required.

Annual Report.

A consolidated
Annual Report will be published
summarizing significant monitoring
Annual Surveys of TNBC Reserves
shall include:

Nesting Birds Survey
Wintering Birds Survey
Habitat Establishment
Invasive Species Assessment
Covered Species Assessment
If Covered Species of plants, Vernal
Pool Covered Species or Rarely
Occurring Covered Species are
observed within a TNBC Reserve, then
subsequent annual surveys of that
Annual surveys within the
TNBC Permit Area shall include:

Giant Garter Snake Survey
Swainson’s Hawk Survey
See Sections VI.E.2.a and
VI.E.3.d
NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-26
April 2003
findings. All other monitoring
reports shall be retained as
administrative records of
compliance, however, it is not
necessary to separately publish
each monitoring report.

See Sections VI.E.1 and VI.E.2.a
Reserve and any contiguous TNBC
Reserves shall include the identified
Covered Species population.

See Sections VI.E.2.a, VI.E.2.b and
VI.E.3.d
Periodic or Five Year Monitoring
General Reserve Monitoring Outside TNBC Reserves
Five year monitoring efforts shall
include typical annual monitoring
efforts plus additional monitoring
at specific control sites within the
Basin, but outside TNBC
Reserves.

Summary of density and distribution of
Covered Species upon TNBC Reserves.

Section VI.E.2.a(3)
Control sites (within the
Natomas Basin but outside
TNBC Reserve) shall be
identified and monitored to
compare and evaluate the
biological viability of the TNBC
Reserves as compared to non-
reserve habitat for the Covered
Species.

See Section VI.E.2.a
F. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

1. General Information
Adaptive Management is a process that allows the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program to be adjusted during the life of the permit to ensure that the most up-to-date information is being utilized, and that the Plan’s biological goals and objectives are being achieved. The strategy will define the feedback process and incorporate feedback loops that link implementation and monitoring to a decision-making process.

Incorporating new monitoring information is necessary to effect changes in management to achieve the Plan’s biological goals and objectives. Where monitoring methods do not yet exist, research must be conducted to develop means to assess the effectiveness of the NBHCP. This section explains the Plan’s significant uncertainties and questions, potential strategies to address these uncertainties, how the Plan’s Adaptive Management process provisions will work, and how revisions under the Adaptive Management program will be made.

Future NBHCP modifications, through the Adaptive Management process, may be needed as a result of the following significant uncertainties:

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-27
April 2003
(1) new information resulting from monitoring of Mitigation Lands or other lands in the Natomas Basin and ongoing research on the giant garter snake (See Section II.C.2), Swainson’s hawk, or other Covered Species;
(2) 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 NBHCP (see below, Section VI.H);
(3) minimization and mitigation measures described in the NBHCP that may need to be revised based on new information or the Plan’s monitoring data (e.g., marsh configuration and design; etc.);
(4) the 2,500-acre and 400-acre minimum habitat block size requirements for reserves may need to be revised;
(5) significant land use changes outside of the reserve system but in close proximity to a TNBC reserve that result in a direct impact upon the reserve; and (6) uncertainties associated with the Plan implementation.

Each of these situations could result in new information, new approaches, new recovery or conservation standards that would need to be incorporated into the NBHCP.

Adaptive Management changes to the NBHCP management actions, monitoring, and research needs may be implemented in many ways. For the purposes of the NBHCP, the following three approaches will be used;
(1) regularly scheduled periodic evaluations of the NBHCP monitoring data, other new peer- reviewed scientific information or future recovery plan recommendations by TNBC and/or the NBHCP TAC and a determination by the TNBC Board linking the information to the Plan’s success in implementation and achieving the biological goals and objectives; and (2) identifying significant measurable threshold limits for each of the Adaptive Management objectives that will trigger proposals and solutions requiring a management change; and (3) conducting a review at the Independent Mid-Point Reviews for Land Use Agencies (see Section VI.J.) and the Overall Program Review at 9,000 acres of development (see Section VI.I.).

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 Plan, including to address the mitigation requirements for Covered Species.

TNBC will use the annual reporting process to review the compliance and effectiveness monitoring in the Adaptive Management process. The TNBC report will include a summary of findings with specific management recommendations and direction if applicable. The Adaptive Management Process for the NBHCP will use scientific research and the Plan’s monitoring program to establish a baseline inventory and population density and distribution data for many of the Covered Species for which data is currently missing.

New data and input from the scientific community will be necessary, throughout the life of the Plan, to adjust the threshold limits as appropriate.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-28
April 2003
Management threshold limits are needed that will trigger proposals and potential solutions for changes in the Plan. The management thresholds, in addition to the periodic evaluations are key decision making processes in determining the Plan’s implementation status and succes s in achieving the conservation goals and objectives. The NBHCP Biological Monitoring Program, to be completed within two years of issuances of permits under the NBHCP, will consider and refine management thresholds. Until the Wildlife Agencies approve the NBHCP Biological Monitoring Program, the following management thresholds shall be applied to trigger modifications to the Operating System Conservation Plan through the Adaptive Management program:
(1) new information resulting from monitoring of Mitigation Lands or other scientific studies documenting new or substantially more severe potential threats to Covered Species that are not adequately addressed by the NBHCP;
(2) new scientific information separate and distinct from the information identified in item (1) that identifies the need for adjustments to management practices under the Operating Conservation Plan in order to measurably increase the value of habitat for Covered Species without substantially increasing the management obligations of TNBC;
(3) documentation of presence of a Covered Species within the Natomas Basin not previously found to exist within the Natomas Basin;
(4) year-to-year declines in the documented presence of Covered Species populations within Mitigation Lands that are determined to be significant by the Wildlife Agencies; and (5) substantial modifications to land uses within 800 feet of a Mitigation Lands reserve that have the potential to adversely affect the habitat and/or Covered Species in the reserve; and (6) reduction in foraging opportunities, as identified in Table IV-2, without adequate provisions to maintain foraging habitat, such that the effectiveness of the NBHCP operating conservation program is potentially compromised.

2. Adaptive Management Revisions to the NBHCP
Revisions to the NBHCP resulting from the Adaptive Management provisions shall be accomplished consistent with Section VI.L.3, Amendments and Revisions. Under the Adaptive Management provisions, the NBHCP can be modified if necessary to enasure that the most up to date information is being used under the Operating Conservation Plan. However, adaptive management modifications to benefit one species will not occur at the biological expense of another Covered Species. Changes to the NBHCP that are substantial in scope, and are beyond the scope of the Adaptive Management Program will require the amendment of the Incidental Take Permits, and additional review and approval under the ESA, CESA, CEQA and NEPA.

TNBC shall keep a complete administrative record of all NBHCP revisions resulting from the Plan's Adaptive Management program. For minor revisions, this may be satisfied by TNBC meeting records or other records of an appropriate nature, (see Section VI.L.4).

3. NBHCP Database and Scientific Authority
Quality information is important and necessary for effective implementation of the NBHCP and to ensure that management decisions are based on current Covered Species distribution and occurrence records, land use, and financial data. Annual data entry, updates and management of the databases by TNBC is also necessary for the annual reporting to the Wildlife Agencies (e.g., status of the databases, annual status of NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-29
April 2003
Covered Species and habitats, monitoring and implementation compliance, land use changes, and reserve acreage and condition). 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 TNBC in determining when and if Incidental Take Avoidance Measures and/or pre-construction surveys are required for individual projects. The continuing maintenance of these databases is essential to the NBHCP success.

TNBC will serve as the database manager for the NBHCP and shall be the central data repository of all scientific data collected through the NBHCP for the life of the permits. In this role, TNBC will be responsible for maintenance, management, analysis and distribution of data collected through NBHCP monitoring efforts, as well as serving as a repository for related work conducted by other entities within the Basin. will annually consider the adequacy of the database and a discussion of the validity and reliability of the database will be included each year in the Annual Implementation Report. In addition to monitoring data collected by TNBC and the other NBHCP Permittees, the database will include documents and reports on new species occurrence records from environmental documents, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) entries and other sources as provided to TNBC TNBC shall complete and submit CNDDB data forms to CDFG for all new species occurrences identified through NBHCP monitoring efforts. Additional TNBC services related to the data repository will include data security, compatibility with State and Federal database software applications, data standardization for data collected through NBHCP monitoring, and submittal of annual CNDDB data forms for new species occurrence records in the Plan Area identified through NBHCP monitoring efforts. As the database manager, TNBC will maintain the datbase in perpetuity (including the geographic information system). The central data repository will provide access to NBHCP data to all participants of the NBHCP using established appropriate technologies (CD-ROM, printed copy, or other media as available and as approved by the TNBC Board of Directors). TNBC may, at its discretion, require reimbursement for reasonable costs associated with disseminating monitoring information to entities other than CDFG, USFWS and the NBHCP Permittees.

TNBC shall maintain the database in a form that allows the determination of success of the NBHCP in achieving the biological goals and objectives of the Operating Conservation Program. At a minimum, the database will document in tabular form in a standard spreadsheet program the following data: the numbers and specific locations (UTM NAD 83 Zone 10 is preferred) of each species occurrence within each contiguous block of Mitigation Land; Basinwide data documented on Swainson’s hawk and giant garter snake such as population densities, reproductive successes, etc. collected through annual surveys, 5-year surveys, and other observational data; and, Covered Species data for each identified monitoring control site located outside of the Mitigation Lands. Exact data needs of the Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program required to evaluate the success of the Operating Conservation Plan in meeting the NBHCP biological goals and objectives will be decided by TNBC in consultation with the Service, CDFG, and the TAC. Maps identifying monitoring sites and the specific locations of species occurences shall be maintained to document the locations of monitoring efforts and the locations for data collected through the NBHCP monitoring efforts.

Mapping of monitoring data shall be of adequate detail to evaluate the success of restoration efforts within TNBC reserves and shall allow comparison of year-to-year monitoring results and five-year monitoring results. Additionally, TNBC shall retain mapped information identifying the locations of all Mitigation Lands and all data reported by the Land Use Agency Permittees related to the location of development authorized under the NBHCP, thereby documenting development lands for which NBHCP fees and other mitigation measures have been satisfied.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-30
April 2003
In addition to providing data in a form adequate to meet the above noted biological monitoring obligations of TNBC, biologists conducting monitoring for TNBC shall provide results of their investigations in a spreadsheet suitable for incorporation into a GIS database. Monitoring data shall be maintained in a spatial data system to allow for the evaluation of NBHCP Biological Goals and Objectives and reporting of results to the Wildlife Agencies and the public. In order to allow for consistency in data collection, organization, and presentation, TNBC shall require consulting biologists to use a species-specific template to provide results of monitoring efforts. The template shall be developed contemporaneous to the Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program by TNBC, in consultation with the Service, CDFG, and the TAC.

The use of Mitigation Fees by TNBC to support GIS mapping and database systems shall be limited to:
1) documenting the point locations of Covered Species occurrences identified through TNBC monitoring within TNBC reserves; 2) Covered Species occurrences identified at limited NBHCP control locations outside Reserves but within the Basin; 3) point locations of occurrences of annual Swainson’s hawk and Giant garter snake identified through annual surveys within the Basin; 4) point locations of Covered Species occurrences identified through Preconstruction Surveys within Authorized Development; and, 5) ultimate habitat types within TNBC reserves as described within Site Specific Management Plans If the Wildlife Agencies and the Permittees determine that GIS data other than that described herein are required to analyze the success of the Operating Conservation Plan in meeting the goals and objectives of the NBHCP, the GIS data may be modified so long as the cost of GIS database management does not exceed an annual cost of $10,000 in 2003 dollars. Funding for GIS data management shall be included in the TNBC annual budget as a component of the TNBC administrative budget and the maximum $10,000 available for GIS activities shall increase three (3) percent each year through the life of the NBHCP permits. The three (3) percent cost escalation is consistent with the cost escalation for monitoring activities utilized within the fee study prepared for the 2003 NBHCP. Limitations on TNBC’s obligations related to GIS does not preclude TNBC, other Permittees, or the Wildlife Agencies from pursuing grants or alternate funding for the expanded data sets within the GIS system such as mapping of land cover types outside of TNBC reserves or other informational components that would enhance the functionality of the GIS system.

G. ANNUAL REPORT
On behalf of the Permittees, TNBC shall compile and submit an annual report to the USFWS and CDFG detailing Authorized Development activities, Water Agencies’ activities and habitat acquisition, management, and compliance and effectiveness monitoring activities throughout the Plan Area for the preceding year.

Specific monitoring data collected and compiled by TNBC and the Permittees, as described under Section VI.E, will be documented in the Annual Report. The report will be due 120 calendar days from the last day of each calendar year, or portion of a calendar year, during which the permit is in effect. Each Permittee will be responsible for providing TNBC with information in their possession necessary for compiling the Annual Report.

H. PROGRAM ADAPTATION FOR RECOVERY PLANS

1. Changes Due to Future Recovery Plans Other than Changes to Managed Marsh Component The NBHCP has incorporated, and is consistent with the provisions of the Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, 1999. The NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-31
April 2003
USFWS currently is developing a recovery plan that will address the recovery needs of vernal pool species -- the Vernal Pool Multi-Species Recovery Plan. Other USFWS recovery plans not now in preparation also may be developed over the life of the NBHCP and are expected to address federally-listed species and NBHCP Covered Species which may become listed in the future. The CDFG also may prepare recovery plans for state-listed species, such as the Swainson’s Hawk and species which become listed in the future.

Other Recovery Plans may be developed for species other than the NBHCP Covered Species which may occupy the same ecosystem as the NBHCP Covered Species and which may benefit from recovery actions for these species.

The NBHCP Adaptive Management provisions allow for revisions to management strategies to incorporate new or modified management strategies, such as those which may be included in recovery plans or in response to monitoring results in the Plan Area or to new peer-reviewed scientific information.

However, it is necessary to define the scope of any such revisions with respect to the NBHCP’s original purpose and goals. The specific purpose of the NBHCP is to establish a conservation program to minimize and mitigate for the effects of Covered Activities within the NBHCP Plan Area on the NBHCP Covered Species, and to meet the statutory requirements for issuance of federal and state Incidental Take Permits under the ESA and CESA, respectively.

With respect to the recovery of the NBHCP Covered Species, it is the intent of the NBHCP to contribute to such recovery, consistent with the Plan’s other goals and purposes. Thus, it is necessary to strike a balance between the obligations of the NBHCP to fund and provide mitigation and the obligations of the Wildlife Agencies with respect to recovery plans for Covered Species. Adaptive Management allows the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program to be adjusted and modified to improve its effectiveness as mitigation for the impacts of Authorized Development on Covered Species. As such, certain changes suggested by recovery plans may be incorporated into the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program in order to improve the mitigation being provided and as a result, coincidentally contribute to the recovery of species.

However, the NBHCP and its Adaptive Management provisions are not to be confused with a recovery plan and are not intended to be a replacement for the specific measures contained in recovery plans which have a much broader purpose. Accordingly, funding of recovery plans is not intended to be provided through TNBC by way of the NBHCP and its Adaptive Management provisions.

The NBHCP will incorporate recommendations made pursuant to future recovery plans, monitoring results from the Plan Area, or new scientific information, and when such recommendations:

A. Relate to the physical management of Mitigation Lands.

B. Would improve the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program by identifying relevant new information, approaches, techniques, or species protection needs; C. Can be implemented within the NBHCP Plan Area;
D. Fit within the overall intent, framework, are consistent with the NBHCP’s biological goals and objectives and would not exceed the established Mitigation Ratio of the Plan; and E. Will not substantially sacrifice habitat values for Covered Species that are not addressed by the Recovery Plan.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-32
April 2003

2. Changes to Managed Marsh Component
The greatest potential shift in conservation strategies anticipated to result from a future Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan is a transition from rice cultivation to managed marsh. The managed marsh environment, in addition to enhancing giant garter snake habitat, would provide greater opportunities for TNBC to pursue restoration of Covered Species plants through the Site Specific Management Plan process and the subsequent managed marsh restoration efforts.

The NBHCP establishes an initial habitat enhancement obligation for giant garter snakes and allows adjustments to be made based on the adopted Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan, as amended, monitoring conducted in the Plan Area or in response to new scientific information.

Currently the Operating Conservation Program provides that 50% of the Mitigation Land is to be in rice production while 25% is to be enhanced to managed marsh (the balance of the Mitigation Land (25%) will be managed as upland habitat). Thus, 75% of the Mitigation Land will provide habitat for wetland associated species. Upon adoption of a future Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan, if an adjustment in managed marsh is warranted as specified below, the USFWS will provide written notification to the Permittees, requesting that these percentages be modified within the ranges identified in Table VI-4 and applied prospectively to future Mitigation Land acquired after the availability of such information. Mitigation lands acquired after such written notification may be required to be managed and enhanced with a higher proportion of managed marsh, if the recovery plan, supported by monitoring results or scientific information indicates a higher proportion of managed marsh 1) will improve the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program to meet its biological goals and objectives, 2) is beneficial to the snake, and 3) will not adversely affect any other listed Covered Species.

TABLE VI - 4

PROPORTION OF MANAGED MARSH HABITAT
NBHCP Condition
Minimum-- Levels which
apply at the start of the
NBHCP.

Maximum -- Levels which
may apply to future
Mitigation Land
acquisitions1
Proportion of mitigation land
as Managed Marsh 25% 75%
1 The maximum levels would apply to future TNBC Reserve Land (including Mitigation Land) acquisitions which occur after written notification from USFWS indicating the results of monitring in the Plan Area, in response to new scientific information, or Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan adoption so warrants the shift in level.

Thus, the NBHCP may be adapted to require TNBC to increase the proportion of managed marsh enhanced on Mitigation Lands which are acquired by TNBC after Recovery Plan adoption, if such changes are supported by monitoring results from the Plan Area or new scientific information. Should a Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan, monitoring results from the Plan Area or new scientific information precipitate such a conversion, and should USFWS provide written notification supported by evidence and technical NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-33
April 2003
analysis, then future Mitigation Lands acquired after such USFWS notice may be enhanced and managed by the TNBC to provide up to 75% managed marsh on the balance of such Mitigation Lands.

Modifications to the NBHCP based upon information within a future adopted Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan or by other future recovery plans approved for listed Covered Species, are considered a part of the Plan’s Adaptive Management Program, consistent with the limitations and requirements of Sections VI.F, VI.H, VI.K and VI.L. Information collected through the NBHCP Biological Monitoring Programs and the presence within the Natomas Basin of the Covered Species addressed by the Recovery Plan shall be considered in determining specific revisions to the NBHCP in response to recovery plan recommendations.

3. Swainson's Hawk Recovery Plan
Results of any future adopted CDFG Swainson's Hawk Recovery Plan may also suggest or result in the need for NBHCP modifications to management practices upon Mitigation Lands. Although such modifications are unlikely to be as potentially significant or extensive as those that might be made for the giant garter snake, the NBHCP nevertheless allows for appropriate revision to the Swainson's hawk conservation strategy based on any such plan. Modifications to the NBHCP based on information within a Swainson's Hawk Recovery Plan are considered a part of the Plan’s Adaptive Management Program consistent with the limitations and requirements of Sections VI.F., IV.H., VI.K., and VI.L. Information collected through the NBHCP Biological Monitoring Programs shall be considered in determining specific revisions to the NBHCP in response to recovery plan recommendations.

I. NBHCP OVERALL PROGRAM REVIEW AT 9,000 ACRES OF DEVELOPMENT The NBHCP recognizes that a variety of uncertainties exist in the Plan, including: (1) the levels of development that will actually occur in the Basin, especially in southern Sutter County; (2) program adaptations that may be necessitated by the future Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan; (3) possible development of a state (or federal) Swainson's Hawk Recovery Plan, and the possible need for program revisions as a result of such a plan; and (4) the precise extent, location, and effectiveness of the habitat reserve system as it is developed under the Plan. The NBHCP's Adaptive Management provisions are designed to address many of these uncertainties. In addition, the NBHCP establishes a comprehensive Overall Program Review designed to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the Plan, to be conducted when and if Authorized Development within the Basin allowed by the ITPs for the City and County reaches a total of 9,000 acres (the “Overall Program Review.”).

This Overall Program Review will be triggered at the point Urban Development Permits covering a total of 9,000 acres of development in the Natomas Basin have been issued by the Land Use Permittees and by Sacramento County for the Metro Air Park. During the review, up to but not more than, an additional 3,000 acres of additional urban development may be approved. In other words, no more than NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-34
April 2003
a total of 12,000 acres of urban development shall be approved prior to completion of the Overall Program Review.

The Overall Program Review shall specifically address the following factors: (1) status and population trends of the giant garter snake, Swainson's hawk, and all other Covered Species within the NBHCP area, especially with respect to those biological factors that are directly affected by Covered Activities under the Plan; (2) status and effectiveness of the Plan's habitat reserve system, including its buffer and setback requirements; (3) the Plan's success in meeting the 2,500-acre and 400-acre minimum habitat block size requirements; (4) the status and effectiveness of the Plan's funding mechanisms; and (5) the relative status and distribution of developed lands and reserve lands within each of the Land Use Agency jurisdictions (the City of Sacramento, Sutter County and MAP); and (6) the success of the 25% managed marsh/50% rice/25% upland for supporting giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk, and other Covered Species; and (7) compliance of the Water Agencies (RD1000 and Natomas Mutual) with approved canal and ditch maintenance practices.

The purpose of the Overall Program Review is to evaluate the NBHCP's status as described above, its effectiveness, and its equitableness with respect to the relative responsibilities of the Plan borne by each of its Permittees, in light of the Plan's original intent and expectations. It is not to introduce significant new goals or objectives into the NBHCP not contemplated or intended by the Permittees as described in this HCP, unless any such new objectives are jointly agreed to by the Permittees and the Wildlife Agencies.

If the findings of the Overall Program Review, monitoring results from the Plan Area, new scientific data or an adopted Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan indicate, the managed marsh component of Mitigation Lands may be increased to 75% within sites acquired subsequent to such review, results, determination or Recovery Plan adoption. Such increase would only be made following written notice from USFWS, supported by documentation and technical analysis, supporting the need for an increased percentage of managed marsh.

The review shall be conducted through consultation among all affected Permittees, TNBC, the USFWS, and the CDFG, which shall be known collectively as the NBHCP Review Board. TNBC shall inform the other parties, in writing, when the 9,000-acre trigger for the Overall Program Review has been reached and shall initiate and coordinate the review.

Results of the review shall consist of a written report presenting the conclusions of the Review Board.

These conclusions shall address each of the factors described above. The report shall also present recommendations consisting of the following or of a combination thereof: (1) a recommendation that the NBHCP is functioning as intended and that no revisions to the Plan's measures, in addition to those originally set forth, are necessary; (2) a recommendation that the NBHCP is significantly in need of correction and the specific corrective measures that are needed; and (3) a recommendation as to whether such corrections should be treated as an NBHCP revision under the Plan's Adaptive Management provisions, or whether the corrections exceed the scope or intent of the Adaptive Management process and should be treated as an amendment of the Plan's associated Section 10(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-35
April 2003
permits. Upon completion of the review, the USFWS and CDFG shall, depending on the results, either document in writing that the NBHCP is functioning as intended and that no Plan revisions or permit amendments are necessary, or assist the Permittees in revising the NBHCP and, if necessary amending their respective permits, as needed. The Review Board's report shall be made available to the public for review and comment before written findings are made by USFWS and CDFG. If it is determined that substantial revisions to the NBHCP need to be made through amendment of the permits, all statutory and regulatory requirements including those regarding public notice and review under ESA, CESA, NEPA and CEQA shall be completed.

J. INDEPENDENT MID-POINT REVIEWS FOR LAND USE AGENCIES
In addition to the NBHCP Overall Program Review once 9,000 acres of Authorized Development has been approved, both the City of Sacramento and Sutter County will conduct Independent Mid-Point Reviews as development occurs within each Land Use Agency’s Permit Area. Thus, up to three program reviews (one overall and two independent reviews) may be completed, depending on the timing of development within the City and Sutter. Independent Mid-Point Reviews provide greater assurances that NBHCP objectives are being achieved in the event that (i) development occurs more rapidly than projected within the Permit Area of one of the Land Use Permittees or, (ii) one of the agencies should cease to participate in the NBHCP. The Independent Mid-Point Reviews conducted by the City of Sacramento and Sutter County shall address each of the factors noted for the 9,000 acre Overall Program Review above, as well as the expanded evaluation of progress on the 2,500 acre preserve, and minimum preserve size described in Section IV.C.1.e above.

If the findings of any of the Independent Mid-Point Reviews, ongoing monitoring results, new scientific data or an adopted Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan so dictate, the managed marsh component of Mitigation Lands may be increased to 75% within sites acquired subsequent to such review, results, determination or Recovery Plan adoption. Such increase would only be made following written notice from USFWS, supported by documentation and technical analysis, supporting the need for an increased percentage of managed marsh.

The City Independent Mid-Point Review will begin once Urban Development Permits for 4,000 acres of Authorized Development have been approved within the City’s Permit Area and the review will be completed before the City has approved Urban Development Permits for 5,500 acres of development under the NBHCP. Sutter County will begin its Independent Mid-Point Review once the County has approved Urban Development Permits for 3,500 acres of Authorized Development permits and will complete the Independent Mid-Point Review before the County approves Urban Development Permits for 5,000 acres of development under the NBHCP.

Should the timing of the City of Sacramento’s Independent Mid-Point Review, Sutter County’s Independent Mid-Point Review and/or the overall 9,000 acre program review coincide, then the affected Land Use Permittee(s) may request the program reviews be combined under a single evaluation. Such NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-36
April 2003
request shall be made to USFWS and CDFG and may be granted at the discretion of the USFWS and CDFG. Any revisions to the NBHCP made as a result of either Independent Mid-Point Review shall apply to both Land Use Agencies (and MAP POA) unless the change affects only a particular Permittee.

K. UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES/"NO SURPRISES"/CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES ”Unforeseen circumstances” is defined at 50 C.F.R. 17.3 as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan that could not reasonably have been anticipated by plan developers and the USFWS at the time of the NBHCP’s negotiation and development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the Covered Species.

On February 28, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule codifying its “No Surprises” policy into federal regulation (63 FR 8859). The “No Surprises” Rule states, in part, that:
“In negotiating unforeseen circumstances, the [Service] will not require the commitment of additional land, water or financial compensation or other natural resources beyond the level otherwise agreed upon for the species covered by the conservation plan without the consent of the permittee.

If additional conservation and mitigation measures are deemed necessary to respond to unforeseen circumstances, the [Service] may require additional measures of the Permittee where the conservation plan is being properly implemented, but only if such measures are limited to modifications within conserved habitat areas, if any, or to the conservation plan’s operating conservation program for the affected species, and maintain the original terms of the conservation plan to the maximum extent possible. Additional conservation and mitigation measures will not involve the commitment of additional land, water or financial compensation or restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources otherwise available for development or use under the original terms of the conservation plan, without the consent of the Permittee.” (50 C.F.R. Sections 17.22(b)(5)(iii) and 17.32(b)(5)(iii).) The assurances contained in the No Surprises rule apply only “where the conservation plan is being properly implemented, and apply only with respect to species adequately covered by the conservation plan.”
For purposes of the No Surprises assurances, the term “operating conservation program” shall mean the specific conservation, mitigation, and management measures provided under the NBHCP to minimize and mitigate the impacts of incidental take of the Covered Species. a. Relevant Factors
Pursuant to the No Surprises Rule, in determining whether Unforeseen Circumstances exist, the USFWS shall consider, but not be limited to, the following factors: (1) the size of the current range of the affected species; (2) percentage of range of Covered Species adversely affected by the NBHCP; (3) NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-37
April 2003
percentage of range for affected Covered Species conserved by the NBHCP; (4) ecological significance of the portion of the range affected by the NBHCP; (5) level of knowledge about the affected species and the degree of specificity of the Covered Species’ conservation program under the NBHCP; and (6) whether the failure to adopt additional conservation measures would appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the affected Covered Species in the wild. (50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(b)(5)(C) and

17.32(b)(5)(C).)
b. Burden and Documentation
Pursuant to the No Surprises Rule, the USFWS shall have the burden of demonstrating that Unforeseen Circumstances exist based upon the best scientific and commercial data available. The USFWS must clearly document its findings and base its findings on reliable technical information regarding the status and habitat requirements of the affected species. (50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(b)(5)(C) and

17.32(b)(5)(C).)
c. Advance Notice
Except where there is a substantial threat of imminent, significant adverse impacts to a Covered Species, the USFWS shall provide at least sixty (60) calendar days notice of a proposed finding of Unforeseen Circumstances, during which time the USFWS shall meet with the Permittees to discuss the proposed finding and to provide the Permittees with an opportunity to submit information to rebut the proposed finding.
d. Limits on Additional Conservation Measures
Pursuant to the No Surprises Rule, if the USFWS makes a finding of Unforeseen Circumstances in accordance with the procedures described in this section, and determines that additional conservation measures are warranted, such additional conservation measures shall conform to the maximum extent possible to the original terms of the NBHCP, and shall not involve the commitment of additional land, water or financial compensation or additional restrictions on the use of the land, water or other natural resources beyond the level otherwise agreed upon in the NBHCP for the Covered Species without the Permittees’ consent.

1. Applicability of the "No Surprises" Protections
In light of the NBHCP Adaptive Management provisions (see Section VI.F), program adaptations for recovery plans (see Section VI.H), Overall Program Review (see Section VI.I), and individual Land Use Agency’s Independent Mid-Point Review (see Section VI.J), which allow certain changes to occur throughout the term of the plan, it is necessary to identify aspects of the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program that are subject to the "No Surprises" rule and for which the USFWS may not require additional mitigation for an unforeseen circumstances finding without the consent of the Permittees. The NBHCP NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-38
April 2003
Adaptive Management provisions allow the NBHCP to be revised as a result of new recovery plans, new research into the Covered Species, and ongoing monitoring programs. As a result, revisions may be made to the NBHCP's Operating Conservation Program, including reserve land management and enhancement, and monitoring of the Covered Species pursuant to the Plan’s Adaptive Management provisions, that may result in additional mitigation provided such revisions meet the requirements of Section VI.E and VI.F.

Because such revisions and changes are provided for under the Plan, they are not subject to the restrictions on additional mitigation contained in the No Surprises Rule.

The following elements of the plan are not subject to revision as part of the NBHCP’s Adaptive Management provisions or as a result of the overall or individual jurisdiction reviews: (1 ) the 0.5-to-1 mitigation ratio; (2) the 20 percent limit on the amount of reserve lands that may be potentially acquired out of Basin in Area B; (3) the 75 percent limit on the amount of reserve lands to be converted to managed marsh; (4) any other change not currently described in or provided for under the Adaptive Management program, Changed Circumstances, or other elements of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program that would significantly increase the Plan's costs or restrictions on land otherwise available, including any such changes resulting from the 9,000-acre review Overall Review process or Independent Mid-Point Reviews; and (5) any other change not currently described or provided for under the Adaptive Management provisions or other elements of the NBHCP that would significantly affect the Water Agencies’ costs or place additional restrictions on the ability of the Water Agencies to provide flood control and irrigation services.

2. Changed Circumstances
Another category of circumstances under the federal "No Surprises" rule is "changed circumstances." This term is defined under the rule as "changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan that can reasonably be anticipated by plan developers and the [USFWS] and that can be planned for (e.g., the listing of a new species, or a fire or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such events.)" 50 C.F.R. 17.3. Changed circumstances will be addressed through the Adaptive Management provisions (Section VI.F) or as described below. a. Listing of New Species
If currently unlisted species that are addressed in the NBHCP as Covered Species are listed subsequent to issuance of the NBHCP's associated Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, no action is required of the Permittees under ESA. This is because all Covered Species are named on the federal permit and, under the terms of the permit, permit coverage for any unlisted Covered Species will become effective upon the final listing of any such species under the ESA.

Under CESA, a covered species which becomes listed would be subject to separate confirmation by CDFG that substantial evidence demonstrates that the Section 2081 Permit will continue to meet the standards in California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 (b) and Title 14 of the California Code of NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-39
April 2003
Regulations, Section 783.4 for the Additional State Protected Species. (See also Section 6.2.4 of the Implementation Agreement).

However, currently unlisted species that are not addressed as Covered Species in the NBHCP will not be included in the permit and will not be so treated in the event of listing. To the extent the USFWS or Permittees determine that any such species would likely be taken, jeopardized, or the critical habitat, if any, of such species adversely modified or destroyed, as a result of the Covered Activities, the Permittees will implement the “no jeopardy/no take/no adverse modification” measures identified by USFWS until such time as the Permittee’s federal permit is amended to obtain permit coverage for these species or until the USFWS notifies the Permittee that such measures are no longer needed to avoid jeopardy to, take of, or adverse modification of the critical habitat of, the non-Covered Species.

Unforeseen Circumstances: There are no unforeseen circumstances associated with the listing of new species under the ESA.
b. Availability of New Scientific Information
Because the Adaptive Management provisions of this document, Section VI.F provide for the accumulation and integration of new scientific information and the results of monitoring in the Plan Area into the NBHCP’s operating conservation program over the life of new permits, the information is not considered a changed circumstance under the NBHCP.
c. Approval of New Recovery Plans
Section H of this Chapter, Program Adaptation for Recovery Plans, provides during the life of the permits for the integration of peer reviewed new scientific and other information from future adopted recovery plans into the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program, including recommendations in a future giant garter snake recovery plan requiring adjustments in the amount of managed marsh on habitat reserve lands. The integration of such peer-reviewed new scientific and other information is not considered a changed circumstance. Funding for such adjustments will be provided through adjustments to the Mitigation Fees and in addition, if TNBC determines through appropriate economic analysis that management in perpetuity of the Mitigation Lands will not require all interest generated from the O&M Endowment component of the Mitigation Fees, funds may also be may be provided by the adopted O&M Endowment Fund.
d. Problems in Implementing the HCP
Certain types of issues may develop during implementation of the NBHCP. These could include funding deficiencies, possible lack of effectiveness in some of the Plan's mitigation approaches and lands, deficiencies in certain aspects of the Plan's monitoring program, and problems in coordinating the activities of the Permittees and in distributing the location of mitigation lands equitably among the several jurisdictions.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-40
April 2003
The NBHCP Permittees, Service and CDFG have planned for these types of circumstances and have addressed the potential for such occurrences in the NBHCP. The NBHCP’s Overall Program Review, individual Land Use Agencies’ Independent Mid-Point Reviews, regular TNBC Board or NBHCP TAC meetings, and the year end meeting between the Wildlife Agencies and Permittees are designed as mechanisms to address these circumstances. Therefore they are not considered changed circumstances.

Unforeseen Circumstances: There are no unforeseen circumstances associated with the implementation problems of the NBHCP, as described above. e. Fire or Flood
Natural phenomena such as wildfires and floods can result in significant adverse consequences to the NBHCP's Covered Species and their habitats. The likelihood of such occurrences depends to a large extent on the location of the HCP and the history of such events in a given region. In the NBHCP Plan Area, the risk of wildfire affecting Covered Species habitats or mitigation lands is low. This is because the land use types in the area--primarily intensively managed agriculture, would not typically support uncontrolled or extensive wildfire events, compared to chaparral, forest, or similar habitats.

However, there is a significant risk of flood events in Sacramento County, to judge by extensive flooding that occurred in the area in 1986, 1997, and other years.

The effects of floods on the NBHCP's Covered Species and on mitigation lands established under the Plan would depend on several factors, including the severity of the flood event, its duration, and the type of habitat affected. Overall, the adverse effects of flood events on the NBHCP's Covered Species and mitigation lands, if they occur, are expected to be relatively minor. This is because habitat mitigation lands established under the NBHCP, croplands, riparian corridors, wetlands, and some grasslands and woodlands, naturally experience periodic flooding and are capable of absorbing the effects of flooding with minimal or transient damage. It is also because many of the Plan's Covered Species are either adapted to flooding (e.g., the giant garter snake and northwestern pond turtle), would likely not be present or nesting during winter flood events (e.g., Swainson's hawk, and burrowing owl), or are capable of fleeing the harm of such events (e.g., white-faced ibis, bank swallow, and tricolored blackbird).

However, in some cases flood damage to NBHCP mitigation lands could be significant, and could include crop damage, sedimentation, downed trees and shrubs, and deposits of debris. Therefore, the following conditions shall apply should flooding occur in the NBHCP Plan Area during the term of the permits:
(1) If such flooding affects any NBHCP mitigation lands, TNBC, in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies’ representatives on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), shall assess the extent of the damage. TNBC shall submit a report summarizing the nature and extent of such damage to the Wildlife Agencies within 60 days of the cessation of the flood.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-41
April 2003
The report shall address any damage to protected habitats on the mitigation lands and any known or suspected impacts to Covered Species occupying such lands. (2) If damage to mitigation lands is such that corrective action is determined to be needed, as assessed by TNBC and with concurrence of the Wildlife Agencies’ representatives on the TAC, TNBC shall, within 30 days of submission of the report described above, consult with the Wildlife Agencies. Together, TNBC and the Wildlife Agencies shall develop a plan for implementing any necessary measures to correct for flood damage, which measures shall include, but not be limited to, the removal of sediment or debris, land recontouring, replanting vegetation, and any other measures determined by TNBC and the Wildlife Agencies to be necessary to maintain the affected area's habitat values. The plan shall also address any additional funding beyond the management funds already identified under the Plan needed to implement such measures. TNBC will implement the approved plan. Funding for restoration following flooding shall be provided through TNBC, with funds provided as described in Section VI.B above, unless funded by another source.

Unforeseen Circumstances - Flooding: A flood event greater than the 200-year event has not occurred in the last 100 years for the Sacramento or American Rivers in the vicinity of the Natomas Basin.

The potential damage from such an event is not foreseeable, nor predictable. Therefore, a flood and the damage resulting from an event greater than a 200-year event shall be considered an Unforeseen Circumstance.
f. Invasion of Non-Native Species both Plant and Animal It is possible that the habitat reserves may become infested with non-native plant and/or animal species which could impact the quality of the wetland and upland habitat, although the management plans developed for the habitat reserves are required to include measures to prevent such infestations and thus the establishment of a major infestation should be low. A major infestation of fast growing weed species such as giant reed, Johnson grass, etc., can severely restrict water movement in wetlands and reduce habitat quality. The invasion of yellow star thistle in uplands can render fields useless for foraging animals. Large infestations of weedy species can become extremely expensive to control and could heavily tax the mitigation fund. Similarly there may be an invasion of non-native animals species which either prey on Covered Species or degrade habitat quality. A control program to eliminate the problem species can also be expensive.

If a pest plant/animal infestation results in substantial impacts to habitat reserves, as assessed by TNBC, with the concurrence of the Wildlife Agencies, such that it cannot be adequately handled under the existing operating budget, TNBC shall prepare a report which describes the extent of the problem, identifies a range of remedial actions, and includes a cost analysis for funding a control program. The report shall be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for approval. TNBC shall implement the measures recommended in the approved report. Funding for recovery measures related to invasive plants or animals NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-42
April 2003
shall be provided through TNBC, with funds provided as described in Section VI.B above, unless funded by another source.

Unforeseen Circumstances: Due to the well documented national problem of invasive non-native plants and animals, and their effects on native vegetation and wildlife, no unforeseen circumstances exist for this event.
g. Changes in Water Availability
The irrigation of wetland reserves in the Natomas Basin relies on continuous water supplies that are generally provided by Natomas Mutual. If circumstances change and Natomas Mutual is no longer able to provide the same level of water service or ceases to provide irrigation water deliveries in the Natomas Basin, the Covered Species and their habitat could potentially experience a significant impact. Considered herein are changed circumstances that could result in the event of either temporary or long-term reductions in the delivery of irrigation water by Natomas Mutual. General water availability and optional sources for reserve irrigation is discussed in Section IV.D.4.c.

In recent years, Natomas Mutual has installed sophisticated improvements to allow substantial increases in water recirculation within the Natomas Basin. Utilizing this infrastructure, Natomas Mutual has, in recent years, been able to serve all of their water users fully during periods of drought- related water supply reductions. Thus, during short-term periods of drought, water supplies for TNBC reserves are reasonably anticipated to be adequate due to the seniority of the water rights within the Basin and Natomas Mutual’s operations that can limit outflows from the Basin and increase internal recirculation.

If a prolonged drought occurs such that the maintenance of managed wetlands are in jeopardy (i.e., a drought lasting longer than 5 years) as assessed by TNBC and with concurrence of the Wildlife Agencies, TNBC shall prepare a report that explains what effects the drought is having on the NBHCP’s Covered Species and mitigation lands. The report, to be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for approval, shall identify available measures, if any, needed to assure that the basic habitat requirements for the protected species are being met. TNBC shall implement the approved report. The report shall also address any funding needed to implement such measures. Funding for drought recovery measures shall be provided through TNBC, with funds provided as described in Section VI.B above, unless funded by another source.

Unforeseen Circumstances - Drought: A drought lasting longer than 6 years has not occurred in recorded history for the Sacramento or American River Basins, in the vicinity of the Natomas Basin. The potential from such a drought is not foreseeable, nor predictable. Therefore, a drought and the damage resulting from such an event lasting longer than 6 years shall be considered an Unforeseen Circumstance.

Unforeseen Circumstances - Natomas Mutual Discontinuing Service: Natomas Mutual is a long- established privately held water company that provides irrigation water service within the Natomas Basin.

As TNBC becomes a major land owner within the Basin, it will require substantial water deliveries that will NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-43
April 2003
assist Natomas Mutual with remaining an economically viable company. Additionally, substantial agricultural interests are anticipated to remain within the Natomas Basin throughout the life of the permit(s). The potential for Natomas Mutual to discontinue providing irrigation water service within the Basin is not foreseeable, nor predictable because Natomas Mutual has provided irrigation service throughout the Natomas Basin since 1921 and there are no plans to discontinue service. As long as agricultural activities continue within the Natomas Basin, water supply service for irrigation purposes will be necessary.

Consequently, if Natomas Mutual discontinues service it is reasonable to assume that another water company would provide irrigation service for such activities. Therefore, financial implications to TNBC resulting from Natomas Mutual discontinuing service within the Natomas Basin are considered an Unforeseen Circumstance.
h. Toxic Spills and Illegal Dumping of Toxic Materials
If one of these circumstances occurs, TNBC, with the concurrence of the Wildlife Agencies’ representatives on the TAC, shall determine the extent of damage to the reserve(s) and identify and implement any appropriate remediation response. In addition, consultation with local environmental health departments or other emergency response personnel shall occur to determine the appropriate agencies and alternatives available for providing remediation. TNBC shall continue to maintain their lands in a manner that prevents toxic spills and illegal dumping of toxic materials. TNBC and the Land Use Agencies maintain all rights to prosecute and seek remediation from responsible parties for toxic spills and illegal dumping of toxic materials.

Notification: It is the duty of TNBC to notify the Wildlife Agencies, in writing, within 7 calendar days of becoming aware of an existing or potential Changed Circumstance.

Unforeseen Circumstances: Due to the geographic dispersion of the TNBC reserves within the Natomas Basin, it is unlikely that a toxic spill or illegal dumping of toxic substances would affect a substantial portion of the TNBC reserve system. Further, the Basin is served by one major roadway, Highway 99/70. This roadway poses the greatest potential for an accidental toxic spill of substantial volume.

Due to the physical separation of the majority of TNBC reserves from Highway 99/70, as well as the standard practices for responding to major incidents upon state highways, such a spill would be unlikely to substantially affect the TNBC reserve system. If one of the circumstances described above occurs and results in damages to more than 20 percent of the total TNBC reserve lands, an Unforeseen Circumstance will have occurred.
i. Non Participation by a Land Use Agency within the Natomas Basin HCP A changed circumstance may occur if one of the Land Use Permittees covered by the NBHCP either does not become a signatory to the IA, does not exercise its option to obtain Incidental Take Permits or is subject to revocation of its Permits for non-compliance. While the NBHCP is structured to ensure that mitigation will remain adequate to fully compensate impacts regardless of the number of participants (see NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-44
April 2003
Section VI.L.2, Severability), adjustments through adaptive management within the TNBC reserve system may be required to ensure that the type of habitat created by the reserve adequately compensates for and represents the type of habitat affected by Authorized Development within the participating Land Use Agency Permit Area. For example, Authorized Development within the City of Sacramento’s Permit Area may have greater effect on upland species habitat (e.g., Swainson’s hawk) than wetland species (e.g., giant garter snake), whereas Authorized Development in Sutter County may result in greater effects to wetland habitats than to upland habitats.

It is important to note that agricultural land use patterns change in response to various circumstances, including market fluctuations and soil capabilities. Additionally, there is an historic trend for rice production to be eliminated well in advance of urban development. The result of this trend is that, at time of urban development, it appears land to be developed is primarily either fallow or ruderal in character, when in fact the land may have been in rice production and providing wetland habitat up until one or two years prior to development. As such, this NBHCP relied upon the 1997 agricultural cover types as the base conditions to which the Operating Conservation Plan responds.

With the participation of both Land Use Agencies, the NBHCP reserve system, adaptive management and other management measures are effective in compensating and mitigating for the impacts for both of these different habitats and their associated Covered Species. If one Land Use Agency should choose not to participate, the NBHCP requires that an adjustment in habitat acquisition and management may be required to assure the provision of sufficient reserve lands and mitigation to offset fully the impacts resulting from Covered Activities within that Permit Area and to ensure the remaining Land Use Agency’s impacts are adequately mitigated. In order to ensure that the reserve system, mitigation measures and enhancements of the plan remain responsive to the type of impacts, it nonetheless may be necessary to re- evaluate the type of habitat to be restored, created, enhanced or managed by the reserve system if one of the Land Use Permittees does not participate.

In the event this changed circumstance should occur, the participating Land Use Agency, in conjunction with the TAC and TNBC, shall review the existing and planned reserve system relative to the types of habitat which have been impacted and are projected to be impacted by the remaining Authorized Development. The existing Adaptive Management Plans and overall reserve management measures shall be reviewed and modified, as necessary, to ensure that the reserve lands are acquired in accordance with the NBHCP 0.5 to 1 mitigation ratio and to ensure that within that ratio, adequate management and enhancement activities are incorporated in the reserve system design to respond to any change in the type of habitat and associated species which will be impacted. The Wildlife Agencies shall approve all such changes. This may require that TNBC provide a greater proportion of upland enhancements and implement additional upland habitat management activities as specified in Section IV.C.4 on acquired reserve lands if the impacts associated with the Covered Activities of the participating Land Use Agency would result in greater effects to upland species habitat than wetland habitats. Similarly, if the Covered Activities would result in the loss of more wetland habitat, the TNBC would adjust the reserve management techniques to focus on wetland habitat enhancement and management activities as set for in Section IV.C.3.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-45
April 2003
The Adaptive Management Plan shall be developed by TNBC, in consultation with the TAC to ensure that adaptive management changes do not result in adverse impacts to other Covered Species. The changes would be approved as part of the plan’s Adaptive Management Program. In order to avoid significant imbalances in the type of habitat created relative to the impacts by type of habitat and Covered Species, Mid-Point Reviews will be conducted. At the Overall Program Review and the Independent Mid-Point Reviews, impacts and habitat types will be compared and any imbalances in the reserve habitat type will be identified and responded to in policies for both adaptive management and future reserve acquisition and establishment. In this way, the monitoring program for both compliance and effectiveness monitoring will interact with the reserve design and management to ensure successful and responsive habitat mitigation to impacts. (See also Biological Monitoring Section VI.E and Review Sections VI.I and J.) Unforeseen Circumstances: If one of the Land Use Agencies either does not participate in the NBHCP or their Permits are revoked, and the Wildlife Agencies determines that there are no feasible alternatives available for reserve enhancement or acquisition within the Natomas Basin or through Out-of- Basin reserve acquisitions that will address the type of habitat impacted by the participating Land Use Agency, an unforeseen circumstance may occur. For example, if one of the Land Use Agencies should cease participation in the NBHCP after substantial build-out of the reserve system which has occurred in order to provide mitigation for impacts due to Authorized Development associated with previously issued urban development permits, and substantial changes to the reserve system are impractical or infeasible, an Unforeseen Circumstance will have occurred. This eventuality is highly unlikely, and therefore considered an unforeseen circumstance, for the following reasons:
(1) Adoption of the NBHCP and execution of the associated Implementing Agreements commit the Land Use Agencies to implement the provisions of the NBHCP. There is no basis to assume that either Land Use Permittee will fail to fulfill their obligations under the NBHCP or cease participation under the NBHCP.
(2) In order to issue urban development permits, the participating Land Use Agency Permittee must accept mitigation fees. Consequently, before Authorized Development proceeds, the participating Land Use Agency will be required to collect funds which will be used to acquire Mitigation Lands in order to offset the impacts of that Authorized Development.

The participating Land Use Agency’s collection of Mitigation Fees is independent of a decision by another Land Use Agency Permittee to choose whether or not to participate or continue participating in the NBHCP. Thus, TNBC will be responsible for acquiring Mitigatin Lands and adjusting the reserves to compensate for the loss of habitat associated with urban development proceeding pursuant to the participating Land Use Agency’s Permit.
(3) The NBHCP includes requirements for Individual Mid-Point Reviews and an Overall Program Review. These reviews will include an analysis of whether the composition of habitat acquired and restored by TNBC reflects the composition of habitat impacted by NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-46
April 2003
Authorized Development. In the event TNBC reserves do not reflect the types of habitat impacted by Authorized Development, then the Operating Conservation Program would be adjusted accordingly to correspond to the habitat types impacted through the Adaptive Management provisions of the NBHCP.

L. ENFORCEMENT, AMENDMENTS, HCP REQUIREMENTS

1. Enforcement of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) and Section 2081 Permits The provisions of the NBHCP are enforceable through the terms and conditions of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit and 2081 permit issued by the USFWS and CDFG, respectively, the NBHCP Implementation Agreement executed by the respective Permittees and governing federal and state laws and regulations.
a. Notice
Any notice required to enforce, amend, or evaluate the NBHCP and terms and conditions of the Implementation Agreement must be given to the Permittees by personal delivery or by certified mail/return receipt requested.
b. Suspension/Revocation
The USFWS or CDFG may suspend their respective Permits of any given Permittee if that Permittee fails to implement the NBHCP in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permits and as provided for under applicable regulations. Suspension or revocation of a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, in whole or in part, by the USFWS shall be in accordance with 50 CFR 13.27-29 and each individual Permittee's Implementation Agreement. Suspension or revocation of any permit issued by the CDFG based on the NBHCP and pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2081, subdivision (b), in whole or in part, shall be governed by the Implementation Agreement executed by the CDFG, and sections 783.7 and 783.8 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations or other controlling legal authority in effect at the relevant time.

2. Severability
If one of the Land Use Agencies fails to obtain its Permits or has its Permits revoked for failure to comply with the NBHCP, the essential effect to the implementation of the NBHCP is that less Authorized Development is covered by the NBHCP. With regard to funding adequacy, the reduction in Authorized Development would result in a similar reduction in acres of mitigation land to be acquired, restored, managed, enhanced and administered as reserve lands in perpetuity. Therefore, TNBC would have adequate funding to continue to implement the NBHCP as it applies to the reduced Authorized Development and the Covered Activities within the participating Land Use Permittees’ Permit Areas.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-47
April 2003
Additionally, if TNBC were to implement the NBHCP under these circumstances, the NBHCP provides for adjustments to the Mitigation Fee as necessary, to fund the acquisition, restoration, creation, enhancement and management of reserves on a 0.5 to 1.0 mitigation basis. Economic and Planning Systems, has completed the Fee Analysis since the inception of the HCP’s implementation and completed an Economic Analysis that shows the financial result on TNBC if less Authorized Development than the full 17,500 acres occurs (see Appendix A).

Additionally, should one of the Land Use Agencies not participate (see Changed Circumstances Section VI.K.2.i above), the NBHCP provides for adaptive management revisions to ensure that the mitigation program continues to be proportionate to the type of habitat and species affected.

3. Amendments and Revisions
There are two types of changes which may be made to the NBHCP and/or the NBHCP Permits and/or its associated documents:

Revisions
Amendments
Any revisions or amendments shall be in accordance with all applicable legal requirements, including but not limited to the ESA, NEPA, CESA, CEQA, and any applicable state and federal regulations.

TNBC shall process all amendments and revisions to the NBHCP, circulating proposed changes to all parties and, if appropriate, approving the amendment or revision by action of TNBC Board. a. Revisions (Changes to the NBHCP Not Requiring Amendment of the Plan and Incidental Take Permits)
Revisions to the NBHCP are changes to the Plan provided for under the Operation Conservation Program, including Adaptive Management changes and Mitigation Fee adjustments. These revisions would not result in operations under the NBHCP that are significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved, result in adverse impacts on the environment that are new or significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved.

Revisions to the NBHCP may include, but are not limited to the following:
(1) Updating Construction “Windows” for the NBHCP Covered Species. In the event that standard construction windows established for species covered by the NBHCP are revised by USFWS or CDFG, then such revised construction windows within the NBHCP shall be automatically revised.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-48
April 2003
(2) Correction of any maps or exhibits to correct errors in mapping or to reflect previously approved changes in the ITPs or NBHCP;
(3) Establishing and amending preconstruction survey methodologies, including modifying timing of NBHCP preconstruction survey methodologies.
(4) Modifying existing or establishing new Incidental Take Avoidance Measures. (5) Modifying reporting protocols for Annual Reports.
(6) Minor changes to survey, monitoring or reporting protocols; (7) Revising reserve enhancement and management techniques. (8) Establishing new reserve design criteria.
(9) Revising reserve enhancement or management practices in conjunction with Site Specific Management Plans.
(10) Approving recreational or income-generating uses for the NBHCP reserves that are consistent with the biological goals and objectives of the NBHCP Plan. (11) Making annual adjustments to the NBHCP Mitigation Fee to keep pace with inflation, or as necessary to fully implement the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program, including its Adaptive Management provisions and responses to Changed Circumstances. (12) Changes to the membership of the TAC which retains representation from the Wildlife Agencies.
(13) Any other modifications to the NBHCP that are consistent with the biological goals and objectives the NBHCP that the USFWS and CDFG have analyzed and agreed to, and that will not result in operations under the NBHCP that are significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved, result in adverse impacts on the environment that are new or significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved or result in take not analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved including but not limited to: the approval or execution of agreements to facilitate execution and implementation of the NBHCP; action by the TNBC to delegate any of its duties specified by the NBHCP to a third party under its direct control.

The party proposing a revision to the NBHCP shall circulate to TNBC and the members of the TAC, the proposed revision along with an explanation of why the revision is necessary or desirable; and NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-49
April 2003
a description of why the party believes the effects of the proposed revision are more beneficial than or are not significantly different from those described in the NBHCP as originally adopted. TNBC shall be responsible for circulating all proposed revisions to the other Permittees for review, as appropriate. If TNBC, and the USFWS and CDFG representatives to the TAC agree to the proposed revision, and no other Permittee objects within the period prescribed by TNBC, TNBC shall process the revisions to the NBHCP, including, if appropriate, approving the revision by action of TNBC Board. Notwithstanding the above, all adjustments to the Mitigation Fee shall also require approval by the City and County before becoming effective within their respective jurisdictions.

If the USFWS or CDFG representative to the TAC objects that the proposed revision should be processed as an amendment to the NBHCP, then TNBC may choose to submit the proposed revision to USFWS and CDFG for review. The USFWS and CDFG shall each respond in writing to a proposed revision within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of the request provided that sufficient supporting documentation is included with the request. The responses shall either concur with the proposed revision, or require that the proposed revision by processed as an amendment to the Plan and ITPs. If either the USFWS or CDFG require the proposed revision to be processed as an amendment, the agency shall include in their written response an explanation for its determination.

If approved by USFWS and CDFG, the revision shall become effective upon TNBC’s receipt of USFWS’ and/or CDFG’s approval.
b. Amendments to the NBHCP
Amendments to the NBHCP will require amendment of Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits and /or the Section 2081(b) Permits, and may require amendment of the Implementation Agreement. The following summarizes the types of changes which may require a Plan Amendment and the procedures for amending each approval.

Amendments may include any of the following types of changes to the NBHCP:
(1) Proposed revisions required to be treated as Amendments pursuant to Section VI.L.3.b above. (2) The listing under the ESA or the CESA of a new species within the Plan Area which is not an NBHCP Covered Species but which may be affected by NBHCP Covered Activities and for which a Permittee seeks coverage under the Plan and ITPs.

(3) Significant changes to the NBHCP which were not addressed in the NBHCP including, but not limited to the following:
a. Changes to the method for calculating compensation for Incidental Take, which would increase the levels of Incidental Take permitted for the NBHCP.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-50
April 2003
b. Changes to the Mitigation Fee except as otherwise provided for in the NBHCP in Section VI.B of the NBHCP.
(4) Changes to the Covered Activities which were not addressed in the NBHCP as originally adopted, and which otherwise do not meet the Revision provisions above.. (5) Extending the term of the NBHCP Permits past the 50-year term. (6) Extension of the NBHCP Permit Area boundaries to allow development under the NBHCP within the City’s or Sutter County’s portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone beyond the City’s designated 252 acres.
(7) A proposal to increase the total Authorized Development permitted under the NBHCP beyond 15,517 acres (17,500 acres including MAP).

Specific procedures for requesting Amendments to the NBHCP, ITPs and the Implementation Agreement are described below.
c. Amendments to the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits
Following receipt of a complete application package for a proposed Amendment to a Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, the Service shall publish a notice of the proposed amendment to the Section 10 (a) Permit in the Federal Register as required by ESA. The Service shall use its reasonable efforts to process the proposed amendment within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days of publication, except where longer periods are required by law. The amendment of a Section 10(a) Permit shall be treated as an original permit application. Such applications typically will require submittal of a revised habitat conservation plan, a completed permit application form with appropriate fees, a revised Implementation Agreement, and preparation of an environmental review document prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. However, the Parties acknowledge that specific document requirements may vary based on the nature of the amendment.
d. Amendments to the Section 2081 Permits
Amendments to the Section 2081(b) Permit shall be processed in accordance with applicable CESA regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 783.6(c)(4) and (c)(5) NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-51
April 2003

4. Function of NBHCP under ESA and CESA
a. Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(2)(A)
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act requires the applicant to submit a conservation plan in support of an incidental take permit application. Under Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA, the conservation plan must contain the elements listed below in italics. Chapter and section references are included after each element description to show where each of these elements is covered in the NBHCP. (1) A description of the impacts likely to result from the proposed taking. See Chapter VII, Take Levels/Impacts of the Plan.
(2) The steps the applicant will undertake to monitor, minimize, and mitigate such impacts; the funding that will be made available to implement such measures; and the procedures to deal with unforeseen circumstances;
a. Monitor. See Section VI.E, Biological Monitoring.
b. Minimize. See Section V.A.5.a, Measures to Reduce Take [of the giant garter snake]; Section V.A.5.b, Measures to Reduce Take [of the Swainson's hawk]; and Section V.A.5.c-r, for conservation strategies for other species.

c. Mitigate. See Chapter IV, Conservation Plan; Chapter V, Take Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation; Chapter VI, Conservation Plan; and Chapter VII, Take Levels/Impacts of the Plan
d. Funding. See Section VI.B., Funding.
e. Unforeseen Circumstances. Under the NBHCP, there is considerable flexibility in TNBC's ability to manage reserve lands to maintain habitat values for Covered Species. Changes in cost for land acquisition or enhancement will be accommodated by adjustment in the Mitigation Fee as necessary within the terms of the NBHCP. The Plan also has Adaptive Management provisions allowing for adjustments to certain aspects of the conservation program through time (Section VI.F). See Section VI.K above for further discussion of how Unforeseen Circumstances relates to the NBHCP's requirements.
(3) Alternative actions to such taking the applicant considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized. Alternatives to the NBHCP program were considered, including a No-Project Alternative, No Rice/Hunting Revenue Alternative, and Involvement of Agriculture Alternative (see Section VII). However, due to the ubiquitous NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-52
April 2003
presence of giant garter snakes in the rice fields and in the man-made water supply and drainage system, alternatives that would avoid take completely are considered to be impractical.
(4) Additional measures the USFWS may require as being necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan. The NBHCP will be implemented through issuance of federal and state permits and the Implementation Agreements between each Permittee and the USFWS and CDFG.

Typically, an HCP should also include the following in order to provide supporting information for the statutory and regulatory HCP requirements.
(1) Delineation of the Natomas Basin and individual permit areas for each Permittee. See Figure 2.
(2) Collection and synthesis of biological data for all listed and other Covered Species being addressed in the HCP. See Chapter II, Biological Data
(3) Identification of activities that may result in take. Incidental take may occur as a result of urban development within the Basin, during operation and maintenance of water conveyance facilities within the Basin, and during acquisition, restoration and management activities of TNBC. See Section I.N, for Covered Activities that may result in take. (4) Quantification of anticipated take levels either in terms of habitat loss (acres) or numbers of individual animals. See Chapter VII for the giant garter snake, Swainson's hawk, vernal pool species, VELB, tricolored blackbird, and other Covered Species. (5) An explanation of how the Plan minimizes and mitigates take to the maximum extent practicable. See Section VII and Appendix A.
b. California Endangered Species Act Section 2081 Permit Under CESA, and pursuant to its statutory mandate as a trustee for the State’s fish and wildlife resources, the CDFG is charged with the obligation to conserve endangered and threatened species, and species that are candidates for listing under CESA. The giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk, among other species, are such state listed species covered by the NBHCP.

The CDFG may authorize the take of certain protected amphibians, endangered, threatened, and candidate species under CESA consistent with Section 2081, subdivision (b), of the California Fish and Game Code. The specific requirements governing issuance of an incidental take permit by the CDFG are set forth in Section 2081, subdivision (b), and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION VI-53
April 2003
with Section 783.0. The NBHCP is intended to meet all of the requirements governing an application for an incidental take permit under CESA and, as a consequence, to provide grounds for the CDFG to authorize the incidental take of State listed species covered by the NBHCP (See generally Fish & Game Code, § 2081, subds. (B)(1)-(4),(c); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 783.2, 783.4). The NBHCP, as a consequence, identifies the extent of take that may result because of activities covered by the NBHCP, includes measures that minimize and fully mitigate all impacts on the State listed species that result from the otherwise lawful activities covered by the NBHCP, and includes an analysis establishing that implementation of the NBHCP and associated other activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of State listed species covered by the Plan, among other obligations. See Section VI.C above.

In the event that one or more of the Covered Species that are not State Protected Species are listed as an endangered species or threatened species or candidate species pursuant to the CESA, the Section 2081 Permit shall become effective to permit the Incidental Take of such species in connection with Authorized Development within each Permittee’s Permit Area as of the date the species is accepted and designated as a candidate species pursuant to California Fish and Game Code section 2074.2 upon confirmation by CDFG that substantial evidence demonstrates that the Section 2081 Permit will continue to meet the standards in California Fish and Game Code Section 2081(b) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 783.4 for the Additional State Protected Species. In the event CDFG determines that such standards will not be met, and the Section 2081 Permit does not become effective upon the designation of an Additional State Protected Species as a candidate, threatened, or endangered species under CESA, CDFG shall accept and give due consideration to the application for a permit amendment or for a separate Section 2081 Permit authorizing Incidental Take fo any such Additional State Protected Species. CDFG shall review and process the application for an amendment to the Section 2081 Permit or a new Section 2081 Permit to authorize Incidental Take of an Additional Staet Protected Species to ensure, to the extent consistent with CESA, that the Incidental Take authorization is effective at the time the Covered Species is accepted and designated as a candidate species under CESA. c. Implementation of the NBHCP and IA
The NBHCP will be implemented by the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual and TNBC through an Implementation Agreement(s) that will be executed by each Permittee. While each Permittee need not implement the NBHCP at the same time, it is anticipated that some or all NBHCP Permittees will proceed with execution of an IA following approval of the NBHCP, the IA and the associated environmental documents by USFWS and CDFG. Conversely, implementation of the NBHCP may occur over time, through periodic additions by local jurisdictions, agencies and entities, and the phased implementation of their respective NBHCP related obligations.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONVI-54
April 2003
NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-1 April 2003
VII. TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN
This chapter estimates take levels anticipated under the NBHCP and the anticipated effect of that take on the Covered Species, as required by the federal and state ESAs. Covered Activities addressed under the NBHCP consist of Authorized Development in the Permit Areas of Sutter County and the City of Sacramento operations and maintenance activities by the Water Agencies, and management activities conducted by TNBC on the habitat reserves. Within the respective Land Use Agencies’ Permit Areas, Authorized Development must be lawful and otherwise approved according to their adopted general plans, specific plans and community plans and shall not conflict with the activities of TNBC. Addressing urban development, the NBHCP also satisfies the requirement in the USFWS's March 11, 1994, biological opinion, as amended, concerning the proposed Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency project that the indirect effects of that project on federally listed species--these being the increased urbanization that the flood control project would make possible--be addressed and mitigated. State law requires each of the local agency prospective applicants and CDFG to comply with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to issuance of any incidental take permit under CESA. Likewise the prospective applicants and USWFS must comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to issuance of any incidental take permit under ESA.

The USFWS actions of approving the NBHCP and issuing the requested Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits are subject to NEPA compliance and will be the subject of an Environmental Impact Statement.

Issuance of take permits by CDFG and local agency implementation of the NBHCP are also subject to compliance with CEQA and will be the subject of an Environmental Impact Report.

Take levels included in this plan were developed using a GIS system prepared by CH2MHill, as refined by actual field studies conducted by May & Associates in 2001. The impacts or take levels to Covered Species are fully covered in the “Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Impacts to Covered Species” prepared by CH2MHill in February 2002, (also referred to as the Technical Memo) which is included in the Appendices to this document. The method for estimating impacts to species is habitat based, which is an acceptable method identified in the USFWS’ HCP Handbook to conform to Section 10 of the ESA. Thus, suitable habitat for each Covered Species is calculated as both a baseline condition, as well as a future condition assuming all Authorized Development within the Land Use Agencies’ Permit Areas is developed. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) is more specific and references impacts to populations or numbers of individuals. In consultation with the CDFG, habitat acreage impacts are accepted and may in some cases be worst case estimate of impacts insofar as there are no known occurrences in the Natomas Basin for some Covered Species.

A. EFFECTS ON COVERED WILDLIFE SPECIES
Authorized Development expected to take place under the NBHCP will result in the loss of habitat for the giant garter snake and nesting and foraging habitat for the Swainson's hawk. Since these habitats are, or may be, occupied by numerous additional Covered Species (see Tables I-1 and I-2), these species NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-2 April 2003
will also experience habitat loss under the Plan. It is also expected that individuals of these species will or may be taken during urban development as well as other Covered Activities addressed in the Plan (e.g., Water Agency Covered Activities, TNBC activities). This take could occur in many ways--e.g., immediate death or injury through crushing, either inside burrows or on the ground surface; road kill; abandonment or loss of young birds at nest sites or nest colonies as a result of disturbance or nest site destruction; starvation or exposure on construction sites as a result of displacement and disorientation; and indirect effects as described in Section VII.E below.

However, the NBHCP sets forth a program to minimize and mitigate the loss of these wildlife habitat values through long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and wetland habitats under the NBHCP's proposed reserve system (Chapter IV) as well as under each Permittee’s avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures (Chapter V). The Plan's reserve system will provide for the protection of these habitat types as well as the plant and animal communities they support. The following sections describe the extent of expected take of the Plan's Covered Species taking into account the reserve system program described in Chapter IV and the take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures set forth in Chapter V.

B. EFFECTS ON VERNAL POOL SPECIES
According to current Sutter County and City of Sacramento general plans, extensive development is not anticipated in the vernal pool portions of the seasonal ponds and wetland areas. Although vernal pool habitat is limited in the Basin, it is anticipated that small areas of vernal pool habitat, generally less than one- half acre in size, potentially could be directly affected by Covered Activities. Elsewhere in the Basin and outside these existing vernal pools, vernal pool species (especially vernal pool fairy shrimp) are not found in natural habitat and are present only in transient or incidental populations in artificial habitats. These incidental populations and artificial habitats (referred to here as “non-vernal pool habitat”) are not considered to have long-term significance to the survival and recovery of the vernal pool species.

Direct loss of vernal pool species habitat will be minimized and mitigated in accordance with the measures set forth in Chapters IV and V.

Although anticipated to be minimal due to the limited presence of vernal pool habitat in the Basin, indirect effects to vernal pool habitat could result from human encroachment, invasive species, altered hydrology and non-point source pollution within vernal pool watersheds. These effects could result in changes in species mortality rates, hydrology changes, reductions in habitat area, and isolation of species.

Incidental take effects on individual vernal pool species are described further below. Reserve management activities described in Chapter IV and minimization measures described in Chapter V for vernal pool habitat would be implemented to minimize incidental take of vernal pool species.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-3 April 2003
C. EXTENT OF INCIDENTAL TAKE
The federal and state Incidental Take Permits will apply to the respective Permit Areas of each Land Use Permittee and will apply to the entire Plan Area including Area B for TNBC. The NBHCP specifies particular areas where urban development can occur, the amount of Authorized Development allowed in each Land Use Agencies’ jurisdiction, and the total Planned Development in the Basin of 17,500 acres. Additionally, the RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual facilities that are covered by the NBHCP extend to areas outside of the Land Use Agencies’ Permit Areas. Thus, collectively, the permits issued under the NBHCP will allow take to occur broadly within the Natomas Basin, but limits Authorized Development to specific locations. Take related to Authorized Development will be mitigated on a 0.5 to 1 mitigation ratio. Based upon 17,500 acres of Planned Development, 8,750 acres of land will be placed into habitat reserves to mitigate for that take (under the Plan's provisions, a minimum of 80% of this reserve land would occur inside the Basin).

Planned Development within the Basin could potentially result in the conversion of up to 17,500 acres of undeveloped land (primarily lands currently in agriculture) in the Land Use Agencies’ Permit Areas to urban use during the 50-year life of the permit (see Figure 16). The future growth scenario is based on projections contained in the approved Sutter County General Plan, the Metro Air Park Plan, the North and South Natomas Community Plans, and the City of Sacramento General Plan (see Chapter III) and the limit on Authorized Development established by the NBHCP.

The NBHCP provides a means of maintaining a par between mitigation and development in the Permit Areas by generating enough reserve land through the 0.5 to 1.0 mitigation ratio, enough money through the associated mitigation fees, and other TNBC revenues to acquire and manage rice fields, wetlands, and upland reserves (see Section IV.C). In addition to acquisition of lands, the TNBC will also manage and enhance reserve lands for the benefit of the Covered Species, thereby providing more productive habitat than the habitat displaced by Authorized Development.

The greatest impact of urban development in the Basin on the Covered Species will be the loss of agricultural land, particularly land in rice cultivation. However, all of the projected Authorized Development will not happen at once, and many areas of the Basin will continue to support agricultural uses over the next 50 years. Figure 16, Historic, Existing and Projected Urban Development Areas, and Figure 15, Rice Cultivation (1997), show land currently in agriculture. Since agriculture, particularly rice cultivation, has an anticipated long-term future in the Basin irrespective of the Plan's mitigation program, rice lands will continue to support wetland habitat for the giant garter snake and other irrigated croplands will continue to provide foraging habitat for Swainson's hawks, in addition to such areas that may be established within the reserve system. The initial reserve system goal is to manage 50% of reserve lands as rice fields in order to continue the agriculturally based wetland habitat characteristics of the Natomas Basin.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-4 April 2003
Calculations of Reserve Lands by Habitat to be Created to Compensate for Impacts Based on the historic habitat characteristics of the Natomas Basin, and the expected impacts by species, the Conservation Plan calls for TNBC to create a system of reserves. The reserve system is to be comprised of 50% rice reserves, 25% managed marsh reserves and 25% upland reserves. It is important to note that a portion of the managed marsh reserves will include upland edges which will also allow for upland species to benefit from the managed marsh reserves. Based on the mitigation program of the Land Use Agencies, reserves are to be created at a ratio of 0.5 acres of reserve for every acre of Authorized Development. Based on these requirements, the overall authorized take of 17,500 would generate a reserve system of 8,750 acres comprised of 50% rice reserves, 25% managed marsh reserves and 25% upland reserves. Table VII-I below shows the amount of mitigation lands to be funded by each Land Use Permittee as well as the total amount of mitigation land.

TABLE VII-1

ACREAGE CALCULATIONS
Permittee
Planned
Development
Reserve Total
to be Created
at 0.5 to 1.0
50% Rice
Reserves
25%
Managed
Marsh
Reserves
25%
Upland
Reserves
City of
Sacramento 8,050 4,025.0 2,012.5 1,006.3 1,006.3
Sutter County 7,467 3,733.5 1,866.8 933.4 933.4
Metro Air
Park 1,983 991.5 495.8 247.9 247.9
TOTAL 17,500 8,750.0 4,375.0 2,187.5 2,187.5
D. IMPACTS ON INDIVIDUAL SPECIES
Discussed below are: 1) the significance of the Natomas Basin to each Covered Species, 2) the extent of take of each Covered Species as a result of the Covered Activities, 3) the measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate take of each species required by each Land Use or Water Agency Permittee, and 4) the impacts of take on each Covered Species as a result of the Covered Activities of the NBHCP. Many of the conclusions made in this section are based on the technical memorandum, Final Draft Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Impacts to Proposed Covered Species (Tech Memo), completed by CH2MHill, dated February 25, 2002.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-5 April 2003

1. Giant Garter Snake
Significance of the Natomas Basin to Giant Garter Snake The giant garter snake is listed as Threatened under both the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the State of California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The Natomas Basin sub-population of the giant garter snake is part of the larger American Basin population. Rice fields and agricultural water supply and drainage canals in the Natomas Basin are important to the species dispersion, feeding, and reproduction. The Natomas Basin provides a portion of the remaining habitat that the larger American Basin population requires to persist, therefore the Basin and its giant garter snake sub-population is important to the continued viability of the species.

Extent of Take of Giant Garter Snake as a Result of Covered Activities

An estimate of take of the giant garter snake under the NBHCP would ideally be based on an estimate of the size of the existing garter snake population in the Natomas Basin and an estimate of how many of these snakes would likely be killed or injured during activities addressed in the Plan. However, for the reasons discussed in Section II.C.2.d, reliable quantitative estimates of the Basin's giant garter snake population do not exist. Another complicating factor is that the exact distribution of garter snakes within the rice land habitats of the Natomas Basin is also unknown. However, though the distribution is probably somewhat patchy, most rice lands in the Basin are probably occupied or could be occupied by giant garter snakes, and the intervening unoccupied agricultural terrain, mostly ditches (but also fields), probably provides avenues for dispersal and other movements.

Therefore, an alternative method of estimating take of the giant garter snake under the NBHCP is to estimate take in terms of loss of habitat acres instead of loss of numbers of snakes by assuming that all rice lands and other potential habitat in the Basin are occupied by snakes to some extent, and then estimating the amount of rice lands and other habitat that could or will be lost to Authorized Development.

Potential habitat for the giant garter snake in the Natomas Basin currently consists of rice fields, irrigation canals/ditches, ponds and seasonally wet areas, and uplands adjacent to these habitat types. The changes in potential habitat in the Basin for the giant garter snake that would result from Authorized Development are shown on Table 5-1 of the Biological Technical Memorandum. According to Table 5-1, the Natomas Basin supported about 24,567 acres of habitat (marsh, rice and canals) for giant garter snakes, about 45% of the Basin. The Future scenario (assuming 17,500 acres of urban development) shows 16,055 acres of potential habitat, resulting in a loss of habitat of 8,512 acres in the whole Basin. Of the 8,512 acres expected to be impacted, 1,617 acres are located within Metro Air Park, which is subject to a separate HCP and mitigation program that is based on and consistent with the NBHCP. This leaves 6,896 acres of habitat which would be affected by future development of the authorized activities of this HCP. Impacts by Permittee are shown in the table below:

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-6 April 2003
TABLE VII-2

GIANT GARTER SNAKE CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES)
Habitat
Class
Baseline City of
Sacramento
Metro
Air
Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Condition1
Overall
%
Change
Ponds /
Seasonal
wet areas
96 -7 -4 -10 -21 75 -21.8%
Rice 22,693 -970 -1,5412 -5,577 -8,087 14,606 -36.6%
Canals
(all) 1,778 -117 -72 -215 -404 1,374 -22.7%
TOTAL 24,567 -1,094 -1,617 -5,802 -8,512 16,055 -34.6%
Source: CH2MHill, February 2002
1 Future condition does not include the minimum 2,187.5 acres of Mitigation Lands to be restored as managed marsh. 2 This rice is not longer in production as MAP has prepared for urbanization.

Note: The above acreage is based on broad land use categories developed by CH2MHill using the Cals system. The land use categories represent potential habitat that giant garter snake might use and does not represent habitat known to be occupied by the species.

The actual reduction in habitat value, however, is expected to be considerably less than the projected 8,489 acres because:
(1) Snakes primarily use the edges of rice fields, not the entire rice field. Because snakes would not use all the acreage identified as rice habitat, the actual amount of giant garter snake habitat in the Natomas Basin is overestimated and is not directly correlated to the projected changes in land use acreage that result from Authorized Development.

Additionally, rice fields generally only provide summer habitat for the snake whereas, the existing canals and ponds provide a more permanent year round habitat. It is important therefore, to note that the loss of 21 acres of wet areas and ponds and 404 acres of canals, will be mitigated by the creation of 2,187.5 acres of managed marsh habitat. Rice, which for the reasons noted above, provides only seasonal habitat will also be provided under the reserve system with a total of 4,375 acres of rice in reserves; (2) Managed marsh habitat would provide more habitat for snakes than rice fields on an acre- for-acre basis because of the larger amount of edge habitat (see Figure 18). Managed marsh habitat would also be superior to the current canal habitat in that it will not be subject to periodic degradation from maintenance activities; NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-7 April 2003
(3) Managed marsh habitat would be designed to accommodate year-round habitat requirements (e.g., year-round wetland habitat to maintain prey populations, integration of wetland and upland habitats so snakes are not exposed to hazards as they move to their overwintering sites, and absence of mortality sources associated with rice production); and (4) Rice in the reserve system would be managed to provide better habitat quality than existing rice fields.

In addition to the change in potential habitat, additional effects of urban development that may cause take of giant garter snakes include the elimination of dispersal opportunities leading to population isolation, the results of edge effects on remaining habitat, death or injury to snakes during construction activities, or entombment of snakes in their winter retreats. Also, experience with the USFWS refuge system suggests that operation and maintenance of the RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual conveyance systems will result in killing or injury of some snakes, and there will be additional take associated with short-term loss of habitat following dredging or cleaning activities. Finally, some take of giant garter snakes will likely occur during rice farming activities on TNBC’s reserves, as well as during TNBC’s construction and maintenance of managed marshes required for the reserve system. However, levels of take of garter snakes during each of these activities (ditch/drain maintenance, rice farming, and marsh construction) are expected to be minor; this is because the Plan's take avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures (Section V) will be implemented, and because some of these activities (e.g., rice farming) are inherently low-impact with respect to giant garter snakes. The issuance of Incidental Take Permits therefore, will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of this species.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of the Giant Garter Snake The NBHCP includes measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate direct loss of giant garter snakes from construction activities associated with urban development and TNBC’s creation of the reserves. The measures related to construction include: timing restrictions, dewatering requirements, and construction monitoring, as well as restrictions on management and maintenance practices. For example, canal and ditch maintenance activities would be limited to no more than 10% of the total miles of canals and ditches per year, including resloping. By conducting construction during the summer months when snakes are active, there is a high probability that snakes in the construction area would be able to avoid construction equipment. By dewatering habitat between November 1 and April 1, snakes would not inhabit construction zones when they emerge from their winter retreats. If dewatering must occur after April 15, it must remain dry for 15 consecutive days prior to excavating or filling habitat. Snakes have been found to leave habitat within a few days of dewatering. By waiting for 15 days after dewatering, it is reasonable to expect that any snakes would have left the construction zone prior to the start of construction activities and injury to snakes would be avoided. Providing construction monitoring (including pre-construction surveys) by a qualified biologist would help ensure that any snakes remaining in the construction area would be relocated in accordance with USFWS and CDFG procedures.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-8 April 2003
The NBHCP includes measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate direct loss of giant garter snakes from Water Agency Covered Activities. These measures include the timing restrictions and dewatering requirements listed above, as well as restrictions on management intensity and management of vegetation control measures. Vegetation control along ditches and canals would be limited to one side of the ditch per year. With this restriction, vegetation that potentially provides habitat for snakes would be retained on one side of the ditch and the ditch could continue to provide cover for snakes following maintenance activities.

Restrictions on mowing, application of herbicides/ pesticides, and burning are provided to ensure that habitat features important to the giant garter snake would not be removed as part of maintenance activities and that individual snakes are not killed or injured as a result of vegetation control practices.

In combination with the Conservation Plan, these measures would avoid, minimize and mitigate take of giant garter snakes to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

Impacts to Giant Garter Snake from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP

Development within the City of Sacramento will result in the loss of foraging, rearing, and hibernation habitat for the giant garter snake and may directly kill or injure individual giant garter snakes due to construction activities although the HCP includes measures to avoid construction take to the maximum extent possible. Foraging and rearing habitat eliminated will consist of agricultural fields and irrigation supply and return ditches and their adjacent levees and berms. Roadside and other types of ditches and channels are also suitable aquatic habitat or movement corridors that may be affected either directly or indirectly by development within the City of Sacramento. Absent the take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures of the NBHCP, this loss of habitat could potentially represent a substantial impact on the local (American Basin) and statewide population of the snake. To avoid the potential that development within the City of Sacramento would have to adversely affect the continued existence of the species in the American Basin, the City will implement the measures proposed within this NBHCP.

According to Table 5-1 of the Tech Memo, the number of acres of canals, ponds, and rice in the City’s Permit Area which may be impacted by future development is 1,094. Of this, 7 acres are ponds and wet areas, 117 acres are canals and 970 acres are rice. The 8,050 acres of Authorized Development in the City of Sacramento will generate mitigation fees and as a result, 4,025 acres of permanent reserves will be acquired by TNBC. Using 25 % marsh, 50% rice, and 25% uplands proportions, 1,006 acres of managed marsh, 2,013 acres of rice, and 1,006 acres of uplands will be acquired by TNBC as permanent reserves as a result of the City’s Covered Activities. The permanent managed marsh would be of a higher quality habitat value than the habitat converted to urban uses because: 1) a higher amount of wetland/upland edge habitat would be provided than rice; 2) a water management regime would provide habitat through the snake’s active period; 3) year-round wetland habitat will be provided to maintain prey populations; 4) there will be an integration of marsh and upland to reduce hazards while moving to overwintering sites; and 5) it will provide decreased mortality sources. In addition, under the NBHCP more rice land would be provided in permanent preserves (2,013 acres) than would be lost by urban development in the City’s NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-9 April 2003
Permit Area (970 acres). While much of the rice land acquired by TNBC for mitigation land is already rice land, the enhanced habitat value results from the permanence of the reserve system and TNBC’s rice production practices. Moreover, the NBHCP’s reserve system will be permanent and not subject to future pressures for its urban development.

The North Natomas Community Plan (NNCP) designates a 250 foot wide non-urbanized buffer along the City side of Fisherman’s lake, an area owned and managed by RD1000 and known to support giant garter snakes. Development within the NNCP will be available to pay for the acquisition of the buffer land through the North Natomas Financing Plan Land Acquisition Program, separate from the NBHCP mitigation fees. The NBHCP imposes no obligations upon RD 1000 related to this buffer.

Development in the City is expected to result in a net loss of habitat for giant garter snakes. Despite a net loss of habitat and direct take of giant garter snakes, implementation of the NBHCP in the City’s Permit Area, including the creation of a permanent system of reserves, provision for a non-urbanized buffer adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake, and compliance with required avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, will facilitate the persistence of giant garter snakes in the Basin because: 1) the quality of both marsh and rice in the reserve system would be greater than the affected habitat and could support a larger population of giant garter snakes; and 2) the habitat reserves would provide habitat that is stable in location, amount, availability, and quality thereby providing conditions conducive to supporting a stable population of giant garter snakes. The NBHCP Operating Conservation Plan will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of giant garter snakes to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

Impacts to Giant Garter Snake from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Development within Sutter County will result in the loss of foraging and rearing habitat for the giant garter snake. Foraging and rearing habitat lost will consist of agricultural fields and irrigation supply and return ditches. Absent the measures proposed to avoid, minimize and mitigate take of giant garter snake proposed within the NBHCP, this loss would be considered potentially significant to the continued existence of the species in the American Basin.

According to Table 5-1 of the Tech Memo, the number of acres of canals, ponds, and rice in Sutter’s Permit Area which would be impacted by Authorized Development is 5,802 acres. Of this, 10 acres are ponds and seasonally wet areas, 215 acres are canals, and the balance or 5,577 acres are rice fields. The 7,467 acres of Authorized Development in Sutter County will generate mitigation fees and as a result, 3,733 acres of permanent reserves will be acquired by TNBC. Using 25 % marsh, 50% rice, and 25% uplands proportions, 933 acres of managed marsh, 1,867 acres of rice, and 933 acres of uplands will be acquired by TNBC as permanent reserves. Thus, loss of habitat which is predominantly in rice fields will occur, however, the Conservation Plan calls for a substantial increase in the amount of managed marsh (933 acres) which will provide a substantial increase in snake habitat over the loss of 215 acres of canals and 10 acres of ponds. The permanent managed marsh would be of a higher quality habitat value than the NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-10 April 2003
habitat converted to urban uses, even rice land, because: 1) a higher amount of wetland/upland edge habitat would be provided than rice; 2) a water management regime would provide habitat through the snake’s active period; 3) year-round wetland habitat will be provided to maintain prey populations; 4) there will be an integration of marsh and upland to reduce hazards while moving to overwintering sites; and 5) there will be a decrease in mortality sources. Although, much of the rice land acquired by TNBC, for mitigation land is already rice land, the enhanced habitat value results from the permanence of the reserve system and TNBC’s rice production practices. Moreover, the NBHCP’s reserve system will be permanent and not subject to future pressures for its urban development.

Development in Sutter County is expected to result in a net loss of habitat for giant garter snakes in that jurisdiction whether or not the City of Sacramento participates. Despite a net loss of habitat and potential direct take of giant garter snakes, implementation of the NBHCP in Sutter’s Permit Area, including the creation of a permanent system of reserves and compliance with required avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, would encourage persistence of giant garter snakes in the Basin because: 1) the quality of both marsh and rice in the reserve system would be greater than the affected habitat and could support a larger population of giant garter snakes; 2) the habitat reserves would provide habitat that is stable in location, amount, availability, and quality thereby providing conditions conducive to supporting a stable population of giant garter snakes; and 3) the Changed Circumstances and Adaptive Management sections of the plan allow for monitoring of impacts to ensure that the type of habitat created by the reserve system supports the species impacted by Authorized Development and also includes changes to incorporate and Recovery Plans adopted for the giant garter snake. The NBHCP Operating Conservation Plan will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of giant garter snakes to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

Impacts to Giant Garter Snake from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities The impacts that may result from RD 1000's Covered Activities, and those that may result from Natomas Mutual’s Covered Activities are substantially the same. As a result, the impacts of the two agencies are defined collectively for giant garter snake as well as all species addressed by the NBHCP and discussed within this section.

Experience with the USFWS refuge system suggests that operation of the RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual water conveyance systems may result in killing or injury of some snakes, and there will be additional take associated with short-term loss of habitat following dredging or cleaning activities.

Possible take of the giant garter snake by the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities is mitigated under the NBHCP because: (1) the NBHCP requires the Water Agencies to employ take avoidance measures to ensure that a minimum number of giant garter snakes are directly killed or injured during the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities; (2) some habitats in the Basin may be currently underutilized by giant garter snakes, allowing for some giant garter snakes to disperse to, or be re-introduced into, those NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-11 April 2003
underutilized habitats; (3) the fact that the ditches and canals already support the primary giant garter snake habitat, indicates that the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities may not be substantially detrimental to giant garter snake populations; and 4) additional mitigation measures as appropriate will be included in the specific management plans for the Water Agencies. The NBHCP Operating Conservation Plan will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of giant garter snakes to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

Overall Impacts to Giant Garter Snake under NBHCP
Urban development within the Permit Areas is likely to destroy giant garter snake habitat (e.g., rice fields, marshes and sloughs, and irrigation ditches and drains), and may directly kill or injure individual garter snakes. Giant garter snakes may be killed or injured through vehicle strikes on roads, crushing beneath heavy construction equipment, or entombment in their winter retreats. Giant garter snakes that escape initial destruction in construction areas may also be killed or injured because of disorientation or lack of suitable cover resulting in starvation or predation. Non-construction related operations and maintenance activities by the water agencies may have similar effects on the snake. The behavior of giant garter snakes, especially their response to construction related disturbance, is not well understood.

However, the NBHCP’s take avoidance strategy for giant garter snakes, recognizes that some such measures could be modified under the Plan's Adaptive Management provisions.

Anticipated take of the giant garter snake, as described above, is expected to be adequately mitigated under the Plan because: (1) the Plan will establish up to 6,562.5 acres of reserve lands in both managed marsh wetlands and rice lands, designed to best meet the giant garter snake's biological needs; (2) the Plan describes take avoidance measures to ensure that a minimum number of garter snakes are directly killed or injured during development and other activities; (3) some habitats in the Basin may be currently underutilized by snakes, allowing for some snakes to disperse to or be re-introduced into them; and (4) some existing rice lands will likely not be developed under the Plan, leaving a component of rice land habitat that would work in concert with the Plan's reserve system to support the Basin's giant garter snake population.

Giant garter snake mitigation includes a combination of overall measures (i.e., pre-construction surveys), species-specific measures (i.e., timing restrictions, dewatering requirements), up-front acquisition of mitigation lands, and planned long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and wetland (i.e., marsh) habitats in the reserve system. Mitigation for the species also includes a substantial monitoring program that will aid in the timely evaluation of mitigation program efficacy.

The NBHCP Operating Conservation Plan will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of giant garter snakes to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-12 April 2003

2. Swainson's Hawk
Significance of the Natomas Basin to Swainson’s Hawk
The Swainson’s hawk is listed as a Threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act. Swainson’s hawks use the Natomas Basin for the breeding season from March to September for nesting and foraging. The hawk overwinters in Mexico and South America. A study conducted by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee in 2000 monitored 24 nesting sites in the Basin, of which 17 were active. Of these, only 10 successfully nested in 2000 (i.e., reared young to fledgling), producing a total of 20 fledglings (Swainson’s Hawk TAC 2000). Two new nesting territories were found in the interior of the Natomas Basin in 2001 and a third new site was found adjacent to the East Main Drainage Canal (Swainson’s Hawk TAC 2001). Of the 27 territories in the Basin, 19 were active in 2001. About 35 additional nesting sites are located outside the Basin, 22 sites on the water side of the Sacramento River east levee (adjacent to the Basin) and 13 sites on the water side of the Sacramento River west levee. Loss of foraging (i.e., grassland and agricultural fields) and nesting habitat (i.e., tall oaks or other trees in riparian and other habitats) continues to impact this species statewide. The Natomas Basin provides foraging and nesting habitat for the Swainson’s hawk and is important to the continued viability of the Swainson’s hawk.

Extent of Take of Swainson’s Hawk as a Result of Covered Activities The HCP includes a number of protocols and mitigation measures to prevent harm to individual hawks. However, indirect or incidental take of the Swainson's hawk could result under the Covered Activities of the NBHCP from the effects of: (1) conversion of Swainson's hawk nesting and foraging habitat to urban uses; (2) adverse edge effects on Swainson's hawk habitat remaining in the Basin after development occurs; and (3) disturbance to or removal of trees which may support nesting activities of Swainson's hawk. The issuance of Incidental Take Permits in combination with the provisions of the NBHCP will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of this species.

Nesting Habitat: The Natomas Basin supports both nesting and foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. For nesting, Swainson’s hawks typically use riparian forest habitats but can use isolated trees or groves of trees outside of riparian zones (Swainson’s Hawk TAC 2000). Of the existing land use types in the Natomas Basin, Riparian, Oak Groves and Tree Groves are considered potential nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk. Based on these land use types, the Natomas Basin currently supports about 328 acres of potential nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk. This acreage does not include riparian habitat along the Sacramento River on the water side of the levees which is located outside of the HCP Plan Area. The land use analysis indicates a reduction in potential nesting habitat of 65 acres.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-13 April 2003
TABLE VII-3
SWAINSON’S HAWK CHANGE IN POTENTIAL NESTING HABITAT (ACRES) Habitat
Class
Baseline City of
Sacrament
o
Metro
Air
Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Condition1
Overall
%
Change
Riparian 124 -24 0 0 -24 100 -19.4%
Oak
Groves
98 -6 -2 0 -8 89 -8.2%
Tree
Groves
106 -10 -23 0 -33 73 -31.1%
TOTAL 328 -40 -25 0 -65 263 -19.8%
Source: CH2MHill, February 2002
1 Future condition does not include the minimum 2,187.5 acres of Mitigation Lands to be restored as managed marsh.

Note: The above acreage is based on broad land use categoriesdevelopped by CH2MHill using the Cals system. The land use categories represent potential habitat that giant garter snake might use and does not represent habitat known to be occupied by the species.

However, the actual loss of nesting habitat would be effectively less than this amount because: 1) it is estimated that only 4 of the active nest sites are located in the area of potential nesting habitat lost to urban development; 2) riparian habitat, suitable for nesting trees, would be incorporated into the habitat reserves; and 3) tree mitigation will be advanced for these four trees following approval of the HCP regardless of when or if the nest trees are actually disturbed ; and 4) measures would be implemented to protect trees that are used by Swainson’s hawk and to increase the availability of suitable nesting trees.

The tree planting program for TNBC lands is in progress and ongoing. 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 and sycamores), and minimize the temporal losses from impacts to trees within areas scheduled for development within the 50-year permit life. Trees will be planted throughout the Basin, increasing nesting habitat within close proximity of quality foraging habitat within the reserves. The trees will also be located in more protected areas (away from development and highways), and near ore consistent food sources. This increased value in foraging habitat based on quality and proximity to nesting habitat will enhance the nesting success (better bioenergetics) of future generation of Swainson’s hawks.

In addition, a total of 2,187.5 acres of upland reserves with tree groves as well as the upland edges (approximately 25% or 547 acres) of the 2,187.5 acres of managed marsh will be established under the NBHCP. Over time, tree groves and nest tree planting mitigation will create substantial new nesting habitat for the Swainson’s hawk. Thus, although 263 acres of potential nesting habitat will be impacted, substantially more acres of upland habitat and edges with trees will be created.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-14 April 2003
Foraging Habitat: Foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk consists of alfalfa, grasslands, pasture and certain row crops, such as tomatoes and sugar beets. Swainson’s hawks have been observed foraging along the margins of rice fields when the fields are flooded, and to forage in rice fields that are not flooded.

Nonetheless, rice provides relatively little habitat for Swainson’s hawks; therefore this habitat type is not considered as foraging habitat in the analysis. Based on this characterization, the Natomas Basin supports about 21,908 acres of foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks (Table 5-5 of the Tech Memo). The future scenario shows 12,703 acres of habitat remaining after completion of Authorized Development including Authorized Development by Metro Air Park. Of the foraging habitat which would be impacted by urban development, 6,917 acres are within the City of Sacramento, 1,860 acres are within Sutter County, and 403 acres are attributed to build-out in Metro Air Park.

The importance of suitable foraging habitat to Swainson’s hawks however is influenced by the proximity of foraging habitat to nest sites. Swainson’s hawks have been found to forage up to18 miles from nest sites, but most foraging occurs much closer to nest sites. The CDFG considers habitat within 1.0 mile from the nest site as the more valuable foraging habitat than habitat at greater distances. The baseline amount of foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk within 1 mile of nest sites is 12,446 acres (Table 5-6 of the Tech Memo). At the Future scenario, a total of 4,149 acres are expected to be impacted in the Basin, leaving 8,279 acres of foraging habitat within 1 mile of nesting sites remaining. Of the 4,149 acres expected to be impacted by development, 3,679 acres are located in the City of Sacramento, 165 acres are located in Sutter County, and 305 acres are located in Metro Air Park. This net reduction would be at least partially, if not entirely, offset by the greater quality of upland habitat (a total of 2,187.5 acres of upland reserves) in the habitat reserves (i.e., native grassland and managed specifically to provide foraging habitat), and by upland components of the other reserve habitats.

TABLE VII-4
SWAINSON’S HAWK CHANGE IN POTENTIAL FORAGING HABITAT* (ACRES) Habitat
Class
Baseline City of
Sacrament
o
Metro
Air
Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Condition1
Overall
%
Change
Non-rice
Crops
9,698 -2,523 -232 -159 -2,915 6,784 -30.0%
Pasture 353 -3 -20 0 -23 330 -6.5%
Ruderal 1,444 -868 -6 -5 -879 565 -60.9%
TOTAL 12,446 -3,679 -305 -165 -4,149 8,297 -33.3%
Source: CH2MHill, February 2002
*within 1 mile of nesting sites
1 Future condition does not include the minimum 2,187.5 acres of Mitigation Lands to be restored as managed marsh.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-15 April 2003
In addition to the 2,188 acres of upland reserve habitat proposed under the NBHCP, there will be numerous other opportunities for Swainson’s hawk forage within TNBC reserve system. It is anticipated that 10% of rice crops will be rotated out of rice production annually, thus providing additional rotating forage land each year. Rice fields are drained for two of the seven month period during which Swainson’s hawk forage in the Natomas Basin and, when drained, these rice fields provide additional foraging habitat. Within TNBC managed marsh reserve component, substantial upland areas and the seasonally dry component of the managed marsh provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. (See Section IV.C.3.d which requires that on wetland reserves, typically include 20-30% of the reserve as upland habitats (for basking, hibernacula, etc.) Based upon the upland reserve component and these additional opportunities, Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat within TNBC reserve system will be greater than the 0.5 to 1.0 mitigation required under the NBHCP. The table below shows the total acreage of upland habitat projected to be included in the TNBC reserve system. The proposed Mitigation Ratio (0.5:1), in combination with restoration and enhancement efforts, and operational and management practices of rice reserves, would comprise a system of upland areas for foraging equivalent to 3,371.9 acres.

TABLE VII-5

UPLAND FORAGING HABITAT WITHIN TNBC RESERVES
Reserve Habitat Type Acreage Percent Upland Area Upland Acreage 25% Upland Areas 2,187.5 100 2,187.5
25% Managed marsh of which
20-30% is upland edges
2,187.5 25 546.9
MAP Additional Swainson’s
Hawk Mitigation Land
200 100 200
Fallow rice reserves 4,375 10 437.5

TOTAL UPLAND

FORAGING ACREAGE
3,371.9
While not under the authority of TNBC or the Permittees, Sacramento International Airport maintains approximately 4,050 acres of buffer lands surrounding the existing airport. These buffer lands provide a large contiguous block of habitat within and adjacent to the Swainson’s Hawk Zone and provide substantial foraging habitat for Natomas Basin Swainson’s hawk populations. Development of these buffers lands to urban uses would require that Sacramento County either participate in a revision to the NBHCP or a separate consultation process with the Wildlife Agencies to secure an Incidental Take Permit. Analysis of such a permit application would consider the impacts of proposed development on the viability of NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-16 April 2003
Natomas Basin Swainson’s hawk populations and the project applicants would be required to fully mitigate the impacts of proposed development.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of the Swainson’s Hawk The NBHCP includes measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of Swainson’s hawks related to change in potential habitat within the Basin. These measures include: 1) avoiding removal of known nest trees, if practicable; 2) preserving valley oaks, wherever possible; 3) preserving and restoring riparian habitat, particularly within the buffer at Fisherman’s Lake; and 4) implementing a tree planting program on TNBC habitat reserves. The tree planting program could create nesting opportunities in areas with limited nesting habitat but that have adequate foraging habitat and increase overall the nesting population of hawks in the Basin.

Also, the NBHCP includes measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of Swainson’s hawk related to construction impacts of urban development or TNBC activities: 1) pre-construction surveys to determine locations of nest sites; 2) timing restrictions to avoid disturbing Swainson’s hawks during the breeding season; and 3) on-site biologist to monitor construction activity that might cause nest abandonment or forced fledgling. The effects of the Water Agency Covered Activities on Swainson’s hawks would be minimal because most of the Covered Activities are expected to occur outside Swainson’s hawk nesting areas. In combination with the Conservation Plan, these measures would avoid, minimize and mitigate take of Swainson’s hawk to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP Development within the City of Sacramento will result in the loss of foraging habitat and could disturb or eliminate active nest sites due to construction activities. Foraging habitat includes alfalfa, non-rice crops, grassland, and pasture. Absent the avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures of the NBHCP, this loss of habitat would potentially represent a substantial impact on the Swainson’s hawk in the City’s Permit Area. that might adversely affect the continued existence of the species in the Basin.

According to Tables 5-5 and 5-6 in the Biological Tech Memo, the number of acres of potential foraging habitat, including alfalfa, non-rice crops, grassland, ruderal and pasture, in the City’s Permit Area which would be impacted by urban development is 6,925 acres. Of this, Table 5-6 of the Tech Memo estimates that 3,679 acres are located within 1 mile of nesting sites and therefore, are considered more productive habitat for the hawk. The Future Scenario, assuming 8,050 acres of Authorized Development, shows 1,006.3 acres of uplands reserve would be created and managed to minimize City impacts to foraging habitat. The uplands habitat will be managed by TNBC to specifically provide the habitat requirements of the Swainson’s hawk (i.e., grasslands and nesting trees). In addition, approximately 25% (or an additional 251 acres) of the managed marsh reserves will be upland edges which will also be managed for the benefit of the hawk.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-17 April 2003
Authorized Development within the City’s Permit Area (Figure 2) is within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone is limited to the 252 acres designated for urban development by the City in 1994. The City is not proposing any additional lands within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone for coverage under the NBHCP and its associated Permits. The foraging habitat converted to urban uses, therefore, is not generally within one mile of the majority of nesting sites. Also, the NNCP designates a 200 foot wide agricultural buffer along the western boundary of the community plan area between the City limits and designated urban uses (page 59 - NNCP). This buffer is part of and contained within the 252 acres of City designated urban development located within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. This buffer is intended to reduce the disturbance of the riparian habitat, including existing hawk nest sites, along Fisherman’s Lake from human and other activities associated with the urban area.

In the 2001 Settlement Agreement, the City was obligated to amend the North Natomas Financing Plan to provide for a 250 foot wide agricultural buffer, 50 feet wider than NNCP. The Financing Plan was amended to include this increased buffer width in the Land Acquisition Program in June 2002. Also, the Settlement Agreement requires the City to consider a community plan amendment to widen the agricultural buffer from 250 feet to 800 feet wide. As of January 2003, the Council has not taken action on this proposed buffer width amendment.

Development in the City will be subject to avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures designed to reduce removal and disturbance of hawk nest trees.

The NBHCP Operating Conservation Plan will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of Swainson’s hawk to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Development within Sutter County will result in the loss of foraging habitat and could disturb or eliminate active nest sites due to construction activities. Foraging habitat includes alfalfa, non-rice crops, grassland, and pasture. Absent the avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures of the NBHCP, this loss of habitat could potentially represent a substantial impact on the Swainson’s hawk in Sutter’s Permit area and could adversely affect the continued existence of the species in the Basin.

According to Tables 5-5 and 5-6 in the Biological Tech Memo, the number of acres of potential foraging habitat, including alfalfa, non-rice crops, grassland, ruderal and pasture, in the Sutter’s Permit Area is 1,860 acres of which 165 acres are located within 1 mile of nesting sites. Foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk within Sutter County is limited due to the type of agricultural practices that occur in the County. Rice is the predominant crop and does not promote a large prey base when compared to more favorable crops, such as alfalfa, or ruderal habitats. Based on Authorized Development in Sutter County (7,467 acres), Sutter County’s contribution to the reserve system would include 933.4 acres of upland reserves and 933.4 acres of managed marsh with upland edges. The loss of foraging habitat will be offset by the fact that the uplands habitat reserves will be managed by TNBC to specifically provide that habitat requirements of the NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-18 April 2003
Swainson’s hawk (i.e., grasslands). And the amount of quality habitat to be created by the reserves will be significantly greater than the amount of high quality habitat (within 1 mile of nesting sites) currently available in the Sutter County portion of the Basin.

No Authorized Development under the NBHCP within Sutter County may occur within the one- mile wide Swainson’s Hawk Zone adjacent to the Sacramento River. This area is not included in Sutter County’s NBHCP Permit Area. Additionally, upon execution of the NBHCP IA, Sutter County will initiate a General Plan Amendment to redesignate land in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone from Industrial/Commercial Reserve to Agriculture. Avoiding development within this zone will reduce impacts to nesting and foraging Swainson’s hawks, however, suitable foraging habitat outside that one-mile zone may still be lost as a result of the County’s Authorized Development. Additional mitigation practices such as tree preservation and planting within NBC reserves will further offset the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat in the Permit Area.

Given the relatively low value foraging habitat and the minimal number of existing nesting trees, the Sutter County portion of Natomas Basin is neither critical or unique Swainson’s hawk habitat and is not critical to the species survival or recovery. Although there could be impacts on Swainson’s hawks in Sutter’s Permit area from the loss of foraging habitat and disturbance of nest sites, implementation of the NBHCP is sufficient to maintain Swainson’s hawks in the Permit Area and the measures specific to urban development within the Sutter County permit area will minimize effects on Swainson’s hawk. The NBHCP will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of Swainson’s hawk to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk from the Water Agencies’ O&M under NBHCP No direct killing or injury of individual Swainson’s hawks is expected to occur as a result of the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities. This is because: (1) most of the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities is expected to occur outside Swainson’s hawks nesting areas; (2) Swainson’s hawks occur in the Basin for only a portion of the year; and (3) the NBHCP requires take avoidance measures to avoid disturbance to individual Swainson’s hawk nest trees during the nesting season. The NBHCP Operating Conservation Plan will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of Swainson’s hawk to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

Overall Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk under NBHCP
The greatest impact of urban development on the Swainson’s hawk in the Natomas Basin would occur if significant portions of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone (Figure 13) were developed. Only 252 acres of urban development located within the City of Sacramento Permit Area is anticipated under the NBHCP within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, an approximately one mile wide buffer along the east side of the Sacramento River for along the length of the Natomas Basin. Of these 252 acres of land in the Swainson's Hawk Zone, about 80 acres will be a 250 foot wide agricultural buffer along the City's side of Fisherman's NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-19 April 2003
Lake. Sutter County’s Permit Area excludes the Swainson’s Hawk Zone from urban development, and upon execution of the NBHCP IA, the County will initiate a General Plan Amendment to remove the existing Industrial/Commercial Reserve General Plan designation from Sutter County lands within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. Also, the NBHCP protects nesting habitat along Fisherman’s Lake in that the area adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake is protected by a minimum 250 foot wide non-urbanized buffer on the City side and no proposed urban development on the west side in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County.

Because the effectiveness of the NBHCP to adequately minimize the effects of take of the Covered Species depends in part on the exclusion of future urban development from the Sutter County portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, and a limitation of development in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone within the City to 252 acres, approval by Sutter County of future urban development within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone or approval of development by the City in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone beyond the 252 acres would constitute a significant departure from the Plan and would trigger a reevaluation of the City’s and/or Sutter’s permits and possible suspension or revocation of the permits. The NBHCP also establishes as a priority the acquisition of upland habitats in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone for inclusion in the Plan's reserve system in order to minimize the loss of nesting and foraging habitat.

With respect to urban development outside the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, the NBHCP requires the retention and maintenance of sufficient nesting and foraging habitat to mitigate for the loss of habitat needed to maintain existing Swainson's hawk population levels throughout the Natomas Basin. This will be achieved through the acquisition or protection of suitable upland habitats outside the Swainson’s Hawk Zone as well as within the zone. The Plan also requires establishment of a nest tree planting program, as described in Chapter V, to ensure the availability of future Swainson's hawk nest trees to mitigate for the loss of or impacts to nest trees in urban development areas. Also, irrespective of these measures, some portion of the Basin's agricultural lands – some of which represent suitable Swainson's hawk foraging habitat – are expected to remain in agricultural production. Thus, the Basin's anticipated ongoing land use patterns, together with the NBHCP's specific measures to mitigate for the impacts of urban development in the Basin, are expected to support long-term survival of the Swainson's hawk within the Plan Area.

With respect to edge effects, the NBHCP establishes two means to minimize such effects. First, it directs the NBC to focus upland reserve site acquisition in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone; second, it requires that habitat contiguity be a primary factor in selecting upland habitat reserve sites. These provisions will ensure that substantial amounts of Swainson's hawk habitat will be protected in the Basin's most important habitat area (the Swainson’s Hawk Zone), and that upland habitats will not be selected for the reserve system randomly (either inside the zone or outside), but with a strategy that maximizes habitat contiguity.

Little to no direct killing or injury of individual Swainson's hawks is expected to occur under the NBHCP. This is because Swainson's hawks occur in the Natomas Basin for only a portion of the year (the nesting season), because most development activities under the Plan are expected to occur outside NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-20 April 2003
Swainson's hawk nesting areas, and because take avoidance measures are required to avoid disturbance to individual Swainson's hawk nest trees during the nesting season (see Section IV.C). However, a few nest trees could be unavoidably lost during the non-nesting season if development occurs along the Sacramento River corridor or in other currently unspecified nesting areas over the life of the permit. The effects of these losses are expected to be minor, however, because the Plan sets avoidance of nest trees as a first priority (and nest tree destruction as a last resort), and because the Swainson's hawk nest tree planting program will offset any such nest tree losses over the long term.

Swainson’s hawk mitigation that is proposed under the NBHCP includes a combination of overall measures (i.e., annual surveys for nesting raptors, advance acquisition of 200 acres per year), species- specific measures (e.g., acquisition of upland reserves within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, construction windows and buffer zones for occupied nests), measures to prevent the loss of nest tree, and avoidance or minimization of impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawks or their nest trees.

The planned long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and wetland habitats in the reserve system, in combination with upland reserves being established in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone adjacent to the Sacramento River will offset the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. Additionally, the Conservation Plan and mitigation measures project 10% of TNBC rice fields to fallow each year allowing additional foraging area for the hawk. It is important to note that it will be essential that development be avoided in this zone to minimize and fully mitigate adverse effects to this species under the NBHCP.

Wetland complexes require a 75 foot upland buffer around wetlands designed for giant garter snake habitat. This buffer is to provide giant garter snake basking areas and refugia, but will also contribute to the amount of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat within the refuge. The proximity of this upland habitat to water and green feed will increase forage base production in these areas.

The Technical Memo Table 5-5 estimates that 9,188 acres of general foraging habitat (excluding reserves) will be lost to urban development within the Natomas Basin area overall. Of these acres, 6,925 acres are located in the City of Sacramento Permit Area and 1,860 acres in the Sutter County Permit Area and the balance of 403 acres is located in Metro Air Park. Relative to foraging habitat within one mile of nesting sites, Table 5-6 of the Tech Memo indicates more limited impacts of 4,149 acres comprised of 3,679 acres within the City of Sacramento, 165 acres in Sutter County and 305 acres in Metro Park. The Conservation Plan calls for the creation of 2,187.5 acres of upland habitat managed to support the Swainson’s hawk and other upland species. Additionally: each managed marsh area includes an upland edge which will provide additional habitat for foraging hawks; approximately 10% of TNBC rice fields will remain fallow each year, providing additional foraging habitat; and, TNBC seasonal marsh and rice fields will be drawn down for a substantial portion of the Swainson’s hawk foraging season, thus providing additional foraging habitat The HCP seeks to enhance the survival of the species through limiting development within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone and through careful creation and enhancement of new habitat areas. This determination of mitigation effectiveness assumes the establishment of upland reserves in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone that are managed as optimal Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. The NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-21 April 2003
NBHCP will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of Swainson’s hawk to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

3. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB)
Significance of the Natomas Basin to VELB
While there are numerous blue elderberry shrubs adjacent to the Sacramento River, there are only scattered isolated shrubs along roadsides and the edges of agricultural fields within the interior of the Natomas Basin. VELB has not been documented to occur in the Permit Areas, however, elderberry shrubs present in the Basin are potential habitat for the species. The Permit Areas are not important to the viability of the species in that VELB has not been documented to occur there.

Extent of Take of VELB as a Result of Covered Activities Quantifying habitat for the VELB for the purposes of the NBHCP is focused on riparian areas within the Natomas Basin and the creation of upland habitat that may include riparian areas. Little change is expected in the potential for VELB to occur in the Natomas Basin, with minimal riparian habitat occurring within the area proposed for development. In addition, the potential exists for elderberry shrubs to be planted in the managed marsh reserves, which would include 2,187.5 acres of permanent, managed marsh area. Assuming potential VELB habitat includes riparian habitat and habitat reserve land, the number of acres of VELB habitat increases from 123 to 2,187.5 acres within the Natomas Basin. Overall habitat conditions are expected to improve for the VELB.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of VELB

Although habitat conditions are expected to improve, removal of individual elderberry shrubs (resulting in potential elderberry beetle mortality) could still occur. Potential impacts to VELB during urban development are addressed in the NBHCP by requiring compliance with the USFWS’ Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS, 1999b). Key aspects of the guidelines include: 1) survey for the beetles and host shrubs by a qualified biologist through the required pre- construction survey; 2) avoidance of occupied elderberry bushes with a 100-foot construction buffer area (may be reduced with the approval of the USFWS); and 3) mitigation of occupied elderberry bushes where avoidance is not possible. Construction impacts could also occur during development of the habitat reserve system. TNBC is also required to comply with the USFWS Conservation Guidelines. Impacts to the VELB may also occur through the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities. The Water Agencies are required to comply with the USFWS Construction Guidelines in areas containing VELB.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-22 April 2003
Impacts to VELB from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP Development within the City of Sacramento is not anticipated to result in a large-scale loss of elderberry shrubs or VELB within the riparian areas along the Sacramento River because no development activities will occur in that area under the NBHCP. Isolated shrubs, or patches of elderberry shrubs, within undeveloped farmland may be affected by City development, which could result in a loss of potential habitat (i.e., elderberry shrubs) for the species. In such cases, impacts to the species shall be mitigated in accordance with USFWS Conservation Guidelines for the species, thus take of VELB in the Permit Area is unlikely to adversely affect the species.

Impacts to VELB from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Development within Sutter County is not anticipated to result in a large-scale loss of blue elderberry shrubs or VELB within the riparian areas along the Sacramento River because no development activities will occur within a one-mile radius of the river. Isolated shrubs may be affected by development within Sutter County, which could result in a loss of potential habitat (i.e., elderberry shrubs) for the species. In such cases, impacts to the species shall be mitigated in accordance with USFWS Conservation Guidelines for the species, thus take of VELB within the Permit Area is unlikely to adversely affect the species.

Impacts to VELB from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP Because relatively little of the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities is expected to occur in river corridors that support valley elderberry shrubs and because no VELB has been found in the Natomas Basin, take of the VELB not likely to occur; and there may be occasional disturbance to, or destruction of, elderberry bushes during the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities.

Overall Impacts to VELB under NBHCP
Elderberry bushes found in the Permit Areas will be avoided and protected from development, and, where avoidance is not feasible, the bushes will be moved to and mitigated for within TNBC reserves. If valley elderberry longhorn beetles or elderberry bushes are found, required mitigation consistent with USFWS Conservation Guidelines shall be required. Retaining existing elderberry shrubs and planting new elderberry shrubs within the TNBC habitat reserves would create and preserve potential habitat for VELB should it inhabit the Permit Areas.

The Natomas Basin does not include banks of the Sacramento River (See Section I). Overall, neither the Permit Areas nor the Natomas Basin support a significant amount of riparian habitat supporting blue elderberry nor does the Permit Area support abundant isolated blue elderberry shrubs.

Mitigation for VELB includes a combination of overall measures (e.g., pre-construction surveys); species-specific measures (e.g., avoidance of blue elderberry shrubs); compliance with current USFWS NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-23 April 2003
habitat conservation guidelines for the species; maintenance of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone which encompasses numerous blue elderberry bushes; and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and wetland habitats in the reserve system.

Given the limited effects on VELB due to Authorized Development and Water Agency Covered Activities, the NBHCP will avoid, mimimize and mitigate take VELB to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

4. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)
Significance of the Natomas Basin to Tricolored Blackbird The tricolored blackbird is listed as both a Federal Species of Concern and a State Species of Special Concern. A 1997 tricolored blackbird survey conducted by Ted Beedy and Bill Hamilton found approximately 230,000 breeding tricolored blackbirds in California (Thomas Reid Associates, 2000). A follow-up survey conducted in 1999 found fewer than 95,000 breeding individuals in California. The tricolored blackbird is occasionally observed within the Natomas Basin and was observed foraging on the Metro Air Park site during field reconnaissance during 1993 (Thomas Reid Associates, 2000). During surveys conducted in 1997 and 1999, no breeding sites for tricolored blackbird were found in the Natomas Basin. However, subsequent surveys identified a nesting colony in the TNBC’s mitigation land reserve in the eastern edge of the Basin (Betts-Kismat-Silva property).

The Permit Area supports scattered copses of emergent marsh vegetation mostly within agricultural ditches that may potentially provide nesting habitat for the species, although it is not currently known to be utilized. However, the tricolored blackbird is an occasional visitor and actively forages in the Natomas Basin. On the basis of the opportunistic behavior of tricolored blackbirds and the limited extent of native marsh habitat in the Permit Area, emergent vegetation associated with agriculture and irrigation canals in the Basin provide marginal nesting habitat for tricolored blackbirds.

Extent of Take of Tricolored Blackbird as a Result of Covered Activities Changes in potential habitat in the Natomas Basin for tricolored blackbird with the implementation of the NBHCP are presented in Table 5-4 of the Tech Memo. These land use categories would be attributable to urban development in the Basin and would result in the overall net loss of potential foraging habitat acreage for tricolored blackbird of about 15,311 acres. Of this, 6,083 acres are located in the City of Sacramento, 7,341 acres in Sutter County and 1,888 acres in Metro Air Park. This is a very broad estimate of foraging habitat since the species is only infrequently observed in Natomas Basin, and sightings have largely been in proximity to wetland or emerging marsh areas which also support nesting habitat. A more realistic assessment of habitat impacts would be to consider habitat which supports both nesting and foraging. Table 5-4 of the Tech Memo, estimates that prime habitat for both nesting and foraging includes ponds and seasonally wet areas, riparian corridors, and canals. A total of 449 acres of prime nesting and NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-24 April 2003
foraging habitat for the tricolored blackbird is expected to be impacted. Of this total, 148 acres would be located in the City of Sacramento, 225 acres in Sutter County and 76 acres in Metro Air Park. With the development of habitat reserves, including 2,187 acres of marsh reserves, and avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures included in the HCP, the issuance of Incidental Take Permits therefore, will not jeopardize the continued existence of this species.

TABLE VII-6

TRICOLORED BLACKBIRDS CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES) Habitat
Class
Baseline City of
Sacramento
Metro
Air
Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Condition1
Overall
%
Change
Nesting Habitat
Ponds and
seasonally
wet areas
96 -7 -4 -10 -21 75 -21.9%
Riparian 124 -24 0 0 -24 100 -19.4%
Canals (all) 1,778 -117 -72 -215 -404 1,374 -22.7%
TOTAL 1,998 -148 -76 -225 -449 1,549 -22.5%
Foraging Habitat
Alfalfa 371 0 0 0 0 371 0.0%
Non-rice
Crops
16,686 -4,663 -325 -1,529 -6,517 10,169 -39.1%
Grassland 886 -427 0 -134 -560 325 -63.2%
Pasture 674 -23 -22 -101 -147 527 -21.8%
Rice 22,693 -970 -1,541 -5,577 -8,087 14,606 -35.6%
TOTAL 41,310 -6,083 -1,888 -7,341 -15,311 25,998 -37.1% Source: CH2MHill, February 2002
1 Future condition does not include the minimum 2,187.5 acres of Mitigation Lands to be restored as managed marsh.

Note: The above acreage is based on broad land use categories developed by CH2MHill using the Cals system. The land use categories represent potential habitat that tricolored blackbird might use and does not represent habitat known to be occupied by the species.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-25 April 2003
Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of the Tricolored Blackbird The NBHCP includes measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of the giant garter snake. Because the tricolored blackbird shares some habitat similarities with the giant garter snake, these measures would also serve to protect the blackbird. Specific measures include: timing restrictions, dewatering requirements, and vegetation control management. Additionally, the plan calls for the development of 2,187 acres of marsh reserves with upland components which more than compensates for the loss of 449 acres of foraging and nesting habitat. This type of managed reserve habitat has already been shown to be successful in supporting the species. The only known colony of the tricolored blackbird in the Natomas Basin is within the TNBC Betts-Kismat-Silva reserve. In combination with the Conservation Plan, these measures would avoid, minimize and mitigate take of tricolored blackbirds to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with the CESA.

Impacts to Tricolored Blackbird from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP Development within the City of Sacramento may result in the loss of patches of suitable emergent marsh nesting habitat and could result in the loss of foraging habitat, which may be used by tricolored blackbirds. The preferred habitats for tricolored blackbird nesting (e.g., marsh and riparian) are very limited in the City’s Permit Area, including 7 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas, 117 acres of canals and 24 acres of riparian habitat. Based on the required take avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, take of the tricolored blackbird is expected to be rare to infrequent during the term of the permits.

Authorized Development in the City of Sacramento will be required to fund the development of 1,006 acres of managed marsh reserves with upland components which will more than compensate for the loss of foraging and nesting habitat. The NBHCP will create new habitat to support the species, and will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of tricolored blackbirds to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with the CESA.

Impacts to Tricolored Blackbird from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Development within Sutter County may result in the loss of small areas of suitable emergent marsh nesting habitat and could also result in the loss of marginal nesting habitat consisting of agricultural fields (i.e., silage and rice). The preferred habitats for tricolored blackbird nesting (e.g., marsh and riparian) are very limited in the County’s Permit area, including 10 acres of ponds and seasonally wet areas and 72 acres of canals. Based on the required take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, take of the tricolored blackbird in the Permit Area is expected to be rare to infrequent during the term of the permits.

It is noteworthy that the only known tricolored blackbird nesting site within the Basin occurs in Sutter County and is located within the TNBC Betts-Kismat-Silva reserve site. Authorized Development in Sutter County will be required to fund the development of 933 acres of marsh reserves with upland components which will more than compensate for the loss of foraging and nesting habitat. The NBHCP will create new habitat to support the species, and will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of tricolored blackbirds to the NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-26 April 2003
maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with the CESA.

Impacts to Tricolored Blackbird from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP The CNDDB shows only sparse utilization of the Natomas Basin by the tricolored blackbird. These birds are very mobile and, consequently, take of individual blackbirds as a result of the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities is expected to be rare to infrequent. Such take shall be minimized through the NBHCP’s Water Agencies’ Covered Activities conservation measures (Chapter V.C).

Overall Impacts to Tricolored Blackbird under NBHCP
A total of 449 acres of prime nesting and foraging habitat for the tricolored blackbird is expected to be impacted. Of this total, 148 acres would be located in the City of Sacramento, 225 acres in Sutter County and 76 acres in Metro Air Park. The Permit Areas support scattered copses of emergent marsh vegetation mostly within agricultural ditches, which are sparsely utilized by the species. Emergent marsh is the preferred nesting habitat for the species. In the absence of significant marsh habitat, the Permit Area offers little to the conservation of the species. The NBHCP Conservation Plan however, calls for the creation of 2,187.5 acres of managed marsh which will provide good quality nesting and foraging area for the tricolored blackbird.

The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre-construction surveys for nesting tricolored blackbirds and its habitat); species-specific measures (e.g., avoidance of tricolor blackbird nesting colonies within development lands and reserve lands); planting of nesting habitat (e.g., cattail and tule marsh); and long- term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and wetland habitats in the reserve system will effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to this species under the NBHCP.

The NBHCP will create new habitat to support the species, and will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of tricolored blackbirds to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with the CESA.

5. Aleutian Canada Goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) Significance of the Natomas Basin to Aleutian Canada Goose The Aleutian Canada goose has been delisted by the USFWS, but continues to be a Species of Concern. The Aleutian Canada goose is known to forage in a variety of agricultural settings, however, no records of foraging Aleutian Canada goose are known from the Basin . Abundant foraging habitat for the species is present to the north of the Basin (Humboldt and Del Norte Counties) and to the south in the San Joaquin Valley near Modesto. However, the Aleutian Canada Goose may be an occasional visitor to the NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-27 April 2003
Basin in its winter migration from the Aleutian Islands to winter sites in the south, notably areas near Modesto and Los Banos.

Extent of Take of Aleutian Canada Goose as a Result of Covered Activities Take of the Aleutian Canada goose could result under the Covered Activities of the NBHCP from the effects of conversion of foraging habitat to urban uses. Foraging habitat for the goose includes non-rice crops, pasture, and rice (roosting and foraging). Changes in potential habitat in the Permit Area for Aleutian Canada goose with the implementation of the NBHCP are presented in Table 5-8 of the Tech Memo.

Changes to the Permit Areas’ land uses attributable to Covered Activities represent a loss of potential Aleutian Canada goose foraging habitat of 14,751 acres as shown in Table VII-6 below. These figures include impacts to rice lands which also affect roosting habitat for the goose. Because the Aleutian Canada goose is an occasional visitor in the Natomas Basin, and due to other additional foraging habitat to the north and south of the Basin, the issuance of Incidental Take Permits therefore, will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of this species.

TABLE VII-7

ALEUTIAN CANADA GOOSE CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES) Habitat
Class
Baseline City of
Sacramento
Metro
Air
Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Condition1
Overall
%
Change
Non-rice
Crops
16,686 -4,663 -325 -1,529 -6,517 10,169 -39.1%
Pasture 674 -23 -22 -101 -147 527 -21.8%
Rice
(roosting/
foraging)
22,693 -970 -1,541 -5,577 -8,087 14,606 -35.6%
TOTAL 40,053 -5,656 -1,888 -7,207 -14,751 25,302 -36.8% Source: CH2MHill, February 2002
1 Future condition does not include the minimum 2,187.5 acres of Mitigation Lands to be restored as managed marsh.

Note: The above acreage is based on broad land use categories developed by CH2MHill using the Cals system. The land use categories represent potential habitat that Aleutian Canada goose might use and does not represent habitat known to be occupied by the species.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of Aleutian Canada Goose In addition to pre-construction surveys and other avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, the NBHCP includes the development of both upland reserves and rice and marsh reserve areas which may attract the Aleutian Canada goose to the Basin. As noted above, the goose is an infrequent visitor. The NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-28 April 2003
creation of 2,197 acres of upland reserves may provide suitable foraging and resting areas for the migrating goose. The preservation and enhancement of over 4,300 acre of rice lands in TNBC reserves will further ensure attractive foraging and nesting areas are available in the basin and will ensure the conservation needs of the species is met.

Impacts to Aleutian Canada Goose from Development in the City of Sacramento under NBHCP The Aleutian Canada goose is an uncommon winter visitor to the Natomas Basin. Suitable foraging habitat (e.g., rice and other grain crops) would be impacted by development within the City of Sacramento.

A total loss of potential habitat for the goose within the City’s Permit Area is estimated at 5,656 acres. The managed reserve units to be developed under the NBHCP may offer improved wintering habitat conditions for this species, thereby improving the value of potential wintering habitat in the Natomas Basin compared to current conditions. Authorized Development within the City will be required to fund 4,025 acres of reserves including rice, wetlands and upland areas which would be suitable foraging habitat for the goose and will ensure the conservation needs of the species is met.

Impacts to Aleutian Canada Goose from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Due to the infrequent use of the Natomas Basin by Aleutian Canada Goose, the anticipated reduction in forage and roosting habitat are not expected to substantially impact this species. The managed reserve units to be developed under the NBHCP may offer improved wintering habitat to this species, thereby improving the value of habitat within the Natomas Basin. Authorized Development within the Sutter County will be required to fund 3,733.4 acres of reserves including rice, wetlands and upland areas which would be suitable foraging habitat for the goose and will ensure the conservation needs of the species is met.

Impacts to Aleutian Canada Goose from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP As a result of the limited occurrence of the species, and as a result of the fact that the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities will not typically result in take of the species were it to occur, the expected take of the species as a result of the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities are zero, rare, or infrequent, and the adverse effects of such take will be insignificant.

Overall Impacts to Aleutian Canada Goose under NBHCP
The Aleutian Canada goose winters in areas both north and south of the Natomas Basin and is expected to be only an occasional winter visitor in the Basin. It grazes in marshes and grain crops (e.g., stubble fields) and roosts on the water. Conflicts between the Aleutian Canada goose and development activities in the Natomas Basin are expected to be minor--e.g., periodic, potential disturbance when winter stubble fields are prepared for construction projects.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-29 April 2003
Abundant foraging grounds for the species are present both to the north and south of the Basin.

Because the Basin has not been known to support foraging Aleutian Canada geese, little to no take of this species is expected to occur during the life of the permits and it is unlikely that the Basin is significant to the continued existence of the species. Additionally, the creation of new habitat areas managed to support and attract the species, along with other HCP measures will avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

6. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi)
Significance of the Natomas Basin to White-faced Ibis
The white-faced ibis forages in fresh, emergent wetland, shallow flooded pond margins, and muddy ground of wet meadows and irrigated, or flooded, pastures and croplands. The ibis requires extensive marshes for nesting. No suitable nesting habitat occurs in the Natomas Basin for this species. White-faced ibis are now common winter visitors to the Basin. The intensive agricultural use of the Basin largely precludes the presence of nesting white-faced ibis. The lack of suitable nesting habitat in the Natomas Basin limits the area’s value as habitat for white-faced ibis. Therefore, development within the Basin is not anticipated to jeopardize the continued existence or preservation of the species.

Extent of Take of White-faced Ibis as a Result of Covered Activities Changes in potential habitat in the Natomas Basin for white-faced ibis with the implementation of the NBHCP are presented in Table 5-3 of the Tech Memo. Land uses identified as potential habitat for the Ibis include: alfalfa fields, ponds and seasonally wet areas, rice fields and canals. The land use changes would be attributable to urban development in the Basin and would result in the overall net loss of potential foraging and roosting habitat acreage for white-faced ibis of about 8,512 acres of which 1,097 acres are within the City’s Permit Area, 5,802 acres are within Sutter County’s Permit Area and 1,617 acres are within Metro Air Park.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of the White-faced Ibis The NBHCP includes measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of the giant garter snake.

Because the white-faced ibis shares some habitat similarities with the giant garter snake, these measures would also serve to protect the ibis. Specific measures include: timing restrictions, dewatering requirements, and vegetation control management. Additionally, the plan calls for the development of 2,187 acres of marsh reserves and over 4,300 acres of rice which will provide enhanced resting and foraging habitat for the Ibis which will provide higher quality areas for birds wintering in the area. The creation of new habitat areas managed to support and attract the species, along with other mitigation measures will ensure the conservation needs of the species is met.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-30 April 2003
TABLE VII-8

WHITE-FACED IBIS CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES)
Habitat
Class
Baseline City of
Sacramento
Metro
Air
Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Condition1
Overall
%
Change
Alfalfa 371 0 0 0 0 371 0.0%
Ponds and
seasonally
wet areas
96 -7 -4 -10 -21 75 -21.9%
Rice 22,693 -970 -1,541 -5,577 -8,087 14,606 -35.6%
Canals (all) 1,778 -117 -72 -215 -404 1,374 -22.7%
TOTAL 24,938 -1,097 -1,617 -5,802 -8,512 16,426 -34.1%
Source: CH2MHill, February 2002
1 Future condition does not include the minimum 2,187.5 acres of Mitigation Lands to be restored as managed marsh.

Note: The above acreage is based on broad land use categories developed by CH2MHill using the Cals system. The land use categories represent potential habitat that white-faced ibis might use and does not represent habitat known to be occupied by the species.

Impacts to White-faced Ibis from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP Of the total habitat which may be impacted by urban development, 1,094 acres is located in the City of Sacramento. White-faced ibis do not nest in the Natomas Basin and potential nesting habitat (e.g., large emergent marshes) is very limited in the Basin; therefore, the species is not likely to nest there in the future. The rice fields in the Basin are considered suitable foraging habitat for ibis. Development within the City of Sacramento has the potential to reduce the quantity of ibis foraging habitat in the Permit Area.

However, rice fields are locally and regionally common outside of the Basin. The lack of suitable nesting habitat in the Natomas Basin limits the area’s value as habitat for white-faced ibis. The NBHCP would provide enhanced habitat reserves that could provide nesting habitat suitable for use by this species.

Suitable nesting habitat in proximity to flooded fields could provide improved habitat for white-faced ibis in the Plan Area. Since the plan requires authorized development in the City to finance the development of 3,089 acres of wetland and seasonally inundated areas (wetland reserves and rice field reserves) which will provide enhanced habitat, impacts will be well compensated for and would not adversely affect the species.

The creation of new habitat areas managed to support and attract the species, along with other mitigation measures will ensure the conservation needs of the species is met.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-31 April 2003
Impacts to White-faced Ibis from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP While the large amount of rice fields make the Natomas Basin an attractive habitat for foraging and breeding, rice fields and the associated farming practices are often incompatible with the nesting and breeding patterns of the white faced ibis. While development in Sutter County’s portion of Natomas Basin would reduce foraging habitat for the white-faced ibis, such foraging habitat is locally prevalent and the development within Sutter County would not substantially affect this species. The lack of appropriate nesting habitat within the Natomas Basin restricts the area’s value as habitat for white-faced ibis. The NBHCP will provide enhanced habitat reserves that may offer appropriate nesting habitat for this species.

Such nesting habitat, in proximity to flooded rice fields that provide forage, could provide substantially improved habitat for the white-faced ibis within the Sutter County portion of the Natomas Basin. It is estimated that approximately 5,802 acres of habitat would be affected in Sutter County including rice fields.

Since the plan calls for the Authorized Development in Sutter County to finance 2,799.4 acres of wetland and seasonally inundated areas (wetland reserves and rice field reserves) which will provide substantially enhanced habitat, impacts will be compensated and development will not adversely affect the species. The creation of new habitat areas managed to support and attract the species, along with other mitigation measures will ensure the conservation needs of the species is met.

Impacts to White-faced Ibis from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP As a result of the limited occurrence of the species, and as a result of the fact that the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities will not typically result in take of the species were it to occur, the expected take of the species as a result of the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities are not likely to occur, and the adverse effects of such take will be insignificant.

Overall Impacts to White-faced Ibis under NBHCP
The white-faced ibis is a common winter visitor of the Natomas Basin although it is not known to nest in the Basin. The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre-construction surveys), species-specific measures (i.e., avoidance of disturbance of nesting colonies during the nesting season both within development lands and reserve lands), planting of suitable nesting and foraging habitat in the reserve system, and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and wetland habitats in the reserve system are anticipated to effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to this species, if it were to occupy this area in the future. The NBHCP calls for the creation of 8,750 acres of reserves, of which 6,562.5 acres will be managed marsh and rice fields which will provide direct benefit for the ibis.

If implemented, this combination of measures will minimize and mitigate potential future effects to the white-faced ibis to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and fully mitigate effects in accordance with the CESA. If the species occupies the NBHCP in the future, and the measures will also protect and enhance the conservation needs of the white-faced ibis habitat in the NBHCP Plan Area.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-32 April 2003

7. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus )
Significance of Plan Area to Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike is a State Species of Special Concern. The loggerhead shrike is observed regularly throughout the Natomas Basin. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat is common throughout the Basin. Foraging habitat for the loggerhead shrike (i.e., annual grassland and to a lesser extent agricultural fields) is widespread in the Plan Area and in the region. The species’ primary prey items include grasshoppers and other small terrestrial insects, as well as small rodents. The majority of the Plan Area is farmed in rice, which requires significant management and pest control to be economically viable. Given the intensive nature of the agricultural practices in the Plan Area, the quality of foraging and nesting habitat for the loggerhead shrike is compromised. Habitat of higher quality (i.e., annual grassland) is present both to the east and to the west of the Plan Area. Because suitable loggerhead shrike habitat within the Plan Area is of low quality and higher quality habitat is present elsewhere in the region, it is unlikely that the Plan Area represents an area important to the continued existence or preservation of the species.

Extent of Take of Loggerhead Shrike as a Result of Covered Activities According to Table 5-12 in the Tech Memo, foraging habitat for the shrike is expected to decrease in the future (about 9,014 acres) due to urban development and other Covered Activities throughout the Basin. As noted above, annual grasslands, pasture and ruderal areas are potentially higher quality habitats for the shrike because of the presence of exterior fencing (perching sites), absence of mechanical disturbance and limited pesticide use which would limit insect prey. Of the 9,014 acres of potential habitat to be impacted, 560 acres are grasslands, 147 acres are pasture and 1,231 acres are ruderal lands.

Assuming pasture, grasslands and ruderal lands are the more productive and significant habitat types a total of 1,938 acres would be impacted by future development. Future land use conditions include 2,187.5 acres of permanent upland habitat reserves which would provide potential foraging areas for shrikes. The system of habitat reserves would be managed primarily with a habitat focus and would be protected from market and other forces that would continue to affect agricultural lands in the Basin. Accordingly, the stability and quality of reserve lands helps offset the loss of foraging acreage and ensure that loggerhead shrikes can continue to use portions of the Basin for foraging. The issuance of Incidental Take Permits therefore will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of this species.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of Loggerhead Shrike The measures to be implemented to avoid, minimize and mitigate take of loggerhead shrikes include:
1) habitat preservation and enhancement, 2) promote agricultural practices on TNBC reserves that enhance habitat values for shrike, and 3) retain suitable lookout perches, including fence posts and tree limbs.

Avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures implemented as part of the giant garter snake and northwestern turtle management plans for O&M activities would protect any loggerhead shrike habitat that would potentially occur in RD1000 and Natomas Mutual’s system of canals and drainages.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-33 April 2003
TABLE VII-9

LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES)
Habitat
Class
Baseline City of
Sacrament
o
Metro
Air
Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Condition1
Overall
%
Change
Alfalfa 371 0 0 0 0 371 0.0%
Grassland 886 -427 0 -134 -560 325 -63.2%
Non-rice
crops
16,686 -4,663 -325 -1,529 -6,517 10,169 -39.1%
Oak Groves 98 -6 -2 0 -8 89 8.2%
Orchard 182 -132 0 0 -13 169 7.1%
Pasture 674 -23 -22 -101 -147 527 21.8%
Ponds and
seasonally
wet areas
96 -7 -4 -10 -21 75 -21.9%
Riparian 124 -24 0 0 -24 100 19.4%
Ruderal 1,970 -1,137 -6 -88 -1,231 739 62.5%
Rural
Residential
377 -46 -10 0 -56 321 14.9%
Tree
Groves
106 -10 -23 0 -33 73 31.1%
Canals (all) 1,778 -117 -72 -215 -404 1,374 -22.7%
TOTAL 23,348 -6,473 -464 -2,077 -9,014 14,332 -38.6%
Source: CH2MHill, February 2002
1 Future condition does not include the minimum 2,187.5 acres of Mitigation Lands to be restored as managed marsh.

Note: The above acreage is based on broad land use categories developed by CH2MHill using the Cals system. The land use categories represent potential habitat that loggerhead shrike might use and does not represent habitat known to be occupied by the species.

Impacts to Loggerhead Shrike from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP The Plan Area supports low-quality habitat in the Plan Area for the loggerhead shrike. Also, only a few individuals have been observed during reconnaissance-level surveys and habitat mapping surveys.

Development within the City of Sacramento would reduce suitable loggerhead shrike habitat in the Plan Area, but City development is anticipated to have minimal effects on the shrike because the species is NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-34 April 2003
uncommon in the NBHCP area, and relatively common elsewhere in the Sacramento Valley. Assuming higher quality habitat is comprised of grasslands, ruderal areas and pasture, a total of 1,587 acres of such lands would be impacted by Authorized Development in the City. Authorized Development in the City will however, be required to fund the reserve system of which 1,006 acres will be uplands and 1,006 acres will be managed marsh with upland components. Based on the avoidance and compensation measures described above, City Authorized Development is expected to have minimal effects on the loggerhead shrike in the Plan Area.

Impacts to Loggerhead Shrike from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Because the Plan Area only supports marginal quality habitat for the species, development within Sutter County is anticipated to have a very little effect on the species. Assuming higher quality habitat is comprised of grasslands, ruderal areas and pasture, a total of 323 acres of such lands would be impacted by Authorized Development in the Sutter County. Authorized Development in the Sutter County will however, be required to fund the reserve system of which 933.4 acres will be uplands and 933.4 acres will be managed marsh with upland components. Based on the above take avoidance measures, little to no take of loggerhead shrikes in the Sutter County portion of the Basin as a result of Authorized Development.

Impacts to Loggerhead Shrike from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP As a result of the limited occurrence of the species, and as a result of the fact that the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities will not typically result in take of the species were it to occur, the expected take of the species as a result of the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities are not likely to occur, and the adverse effects of such take will be insignificant.

Overall Impacts to Loggerhead Shrike under NBHCP
Because habitat of higher quality (i.e., annual grassland) is present both to the east and to the west of the Plan Area, and because suitable loggerhead shrike habitat within the Plan Area is of low quality, it is unlikely that development in the Plan Area will substantially affect the continued existence or preservation of the species.

The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre-construction surveys); species-specific measures (e.g., avoidance of nest sites during the nesting season within development and reserve lands, maintenance of perching and nesting habitat within reserve lands); and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and wetland habitats in the reserve system is expected to effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to this species under the NBHCP. Also as noted above, assuming pasture, grasslands and ruderal lands are the more productive and significant habitat types a total of 1,987 acres would be impacted by future development which would be compensated by the development of 2,187 acres of upland reserves.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-35 April 2003
If implemented, the NBHCP will minimize and mitigate potential future effects to the Loggerhead shrike to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and fully mitigate effects in accordance with the CESA.

8. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea )
Significance of Plan Area to Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl is a Federal Species of Concern and a State Species of Special Concern.

Burrowing owls are known to occur sporadically in grassland habitats, the borders of agricultural fields, roadsides, and airports (CNDDB 2000) throughout much of the Central Valley. Because the majority of the Plan Area is significantly disturbed, and in many areas undergoes recurring disturbance as a result of agricultural practices, the majority of the Plan Area is of low value to the species.

Extent of Take of Burrowing Owl as a Result of Covered Activities Potential foraging habitat for the burrowing owl is provided by alfalfa, canals, grassland, pasture, and upland habitat reserves. According to Table 5-10 of the Tech Memo, 1,931 acres of potential habitat are included in the Basin. The Future scenario, assuming 17,500 acres of urban development, shows that a total of 707 acres would be impacted. Of this, 450 acres are in the City of Sacramento, 235 acres are in the Sutter County and 22 acres are located in Metro Air Park. The proposed reserve system would establish 2,187 acres of upland reserves suitable for the burrowing owl, which more than compensates for the loss of 707 acres of potential habitat. Overall habitat conditions are expected to improve for the burrowing owl. As such, the issuance of Incidental Take Permits will not jeopardize the continued existence of this species. Additionally, although not under the direct control of the City of Sacramento or Sutter County, buffer lands surrounding the Sacramento International Airport (approximately 4,000 acres) are expected to remain in open space which may also provide habitat for the owl.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of Burrowing Owl Potential impacts to burrowing owls during urban development are addressed in the NBHCP by requiring compliance with CDFG’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Key aspects of the Staff Report include: 1) surveys of the project site and a 500 foot buffer by a qualified biologist during both the wintering and the nesting seasons, 2) avoidance of burrows with a 160-foot construction buffer area, and 3) mitigation where avoidance is not possible, including translocating owls to a permanent mitigation area.

Impacts to Burrowing Owls from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP Burrowing owls are uncommon in the NBHCP area. Burrowing owls in the Plan Area tend to occur along undisturbed levees or in undisturbed fields (i.e., uncultivated), such as portions of the Sacramento International Airport. Development in the City of Sacramento may result in the loss of nesting or wintering NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-36 April 2003
burrowing owls. The loss of nesting or wintering burrowing owls could have a substantial effect on the species in the Plan Area without the implementation of compensatory mitigation involving the passive relocation of owls to a dedicated mitigation area. Development within the City of Sacramento in the Plan Area is not likely to have a substantial effect on the overall continued existence of the species throughout its range, but local owl populations could be reduced in the Plan Area. The Tech Memo estimates that 450 acres of grasslands, pasture and alfalfa suitable for habitat by the owl would be affected by urban development in the City of Sacramento’s portion of Natomas Basin. The reserve system calls for the Authorized Development in the City’s Permit Area to finance 1006.3 acres of upland habitat throughout the Basin.

TABLE VII-10

BURROWING OWL CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES)
Habitat
Class
Baseline City of
Sacramento
Metro
Air
Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Condition1
Overall
%
Change
Alfalfa 371 0 0 0 0 371 0.0%
Grassland 886 -427 0 -134 -560 325 -63.2%
Pasture 674 -23 -22 -101 -147 527 -21.8%
TOTAL 1,931 -450 -22 -235 -707 1,223 -36.6%
Source: CH2MHill, February 2002
1 Future condition does not include the minimum 2,187.5 acres of Mitigation Lands to be restored as managed marsh.

Note: The above acreage is based on broad land use categories developed by CH2MHill using the Cals system. The land use categories represent potential habitat that burrowing owl might use and does not represent habitat known to be occupied by the species.

Impacts to Burrowing Owls from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Development within Sutter County may result in the loss of nesting burrowing owls. The loss of nesting burrowing owls would be considered a significant effect on the species in the Plan Area without implementing compensatory mitigation involving the relocation of the bird to a dedicated mitigation area.

However, because of the limited extent of undisturbed suitable habitat in the Plan Area, development within Sutter County is not likely to have a significant effect on the overall continued existence or preservation of the species. The Tech Memo estimates that 235 acres of grasslands, pasture and alfalfa suitable for habitat by the owl would be affected by urban development in Sutter County. The reserve system calls for Authorized Development in Sutter County to finance 933.4 acres of upland habitat throughout the Basin.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-37 April 2003
Impacts to Burrowing Owls from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP As a result of the limited occurrence of the species, and as a result of the fact that the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities will not typically result in take of the species were it to occur, the expected take of the species as a result of the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities are not likely to occur, and the adverse effects of such take will be minor or insignificant.

Overall Impacts to Burrowing Owls under NBHCP
The burrowing owl will benefit from the upland reserves established under the Plan as well as upland habitats established in association with the wetland reserves. Based on the implementation of measures within this document, take of burrowing owls in the Natomas Basin is expected to be infrequent to rare during the term of the permits.

The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre-construction surveys for Covered Species and their habitat); species-specific measures (e.g., avoidance of burrow sites during the breeding season both within development lands and reserve lands, species relocation); additional mitigation according to California Department of Fish and Game guidelines; and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland habitat in the reserve system are expected to effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to western burrowing owl under the NBHCP. A total of 727 acres of potential burrowing owl acreage would be impacted in the Basin. The reserve system will create 2,187 acres of enhanced upland habitat.

These HCP measures will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of burrowing owls to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance CESA.

9. Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia)
Significance of Plan Area to Bank Swallow
The bank swallow occurs in California during breeding season (May through July) and winters in South America. Suitable nesting habitat for the species is limited in the Plan Area for several reasons. The bank swallow requires vertical cliffs or banks for nesting with friable soils. Vertical banks or cliffs are not present in Natomas Basin except in areas along the Sacramento River (outside the HCP Plan Area). This species has only been observed nesting in natural riverbanks, typically away from the active channel, with friable soils (CNDDB 2000, Small 1994). Waterways within the Plan Area are largely channelized and designed to resist erosion even under the highest velocity flood flows. Many of these channels are also cleared of vegetation periodically to maintain their capacity. The combination of channel configuration and recurring disturbance from vegetation clearing probably precludes the presence of this species in the Plan Area.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-38 April 2003
Extent of Take of Bank Swallow
Foraging habitat for the bank swallow includes alfalfa, canals, grassland, pasture, ponds, rice, riparian, and non-rice crops. According to Table 5-11 in the Tech Memo, foraging habitat for the swallow is expected to decrease in the future due to urban development and other Covered Activities throughout the Basin. Because this habitat is located remote from nesting sites, it may support foraging by the species, but would be of lesser quality than foraging habitat in proximity to suitable cliffs or bluffs for nesting. Future land use conditions could impact a total of 15,760 acres of land uses which might support foraging by the swallow. Of this 6,231 acres is located in the City of Sacramento, 7,566 acres are located in Sutter County and 1,964 acres are located in Metro Air Park. The Conservation Plan includes 8,750 acres of permanent habitat reserves which would provide potential foraging areas for the swallows. The system of habitat reserves would be managed primarily with a habitat focus and would be protected from market and other forces that would continue to affect agricultural lands in the Basin. Accordingly, the stability and quality of reserve lands helps offset the loss of foraging acreage and ensure that swallows can continue to use portions of the Basin for foraging. As such, the issuance of Incidental Take Permits will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of this species.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize and Mitigate Take of Bank Swallow Pre-construction surveys will be conducted by the Permittees to identify if the species has resettled in the Natomas Basin. As noted above no bank swallow nesting colonies are currently recorded in the Basin because of the absence of cliffs and bluffs. The species could benefit from any riparian habitats protected or created under the NBHCP because it could use the created habitat for nesting or foraging.

In addition, the following measures would be implemented to avoid and minimize take of the species: 1) TNBC would use applicable USFWS or CDFG approved bank swallow recovery or management plans, 2) disturbance of nesting colonies would be strictly avoided within the nesting season by TNBC during their construction activities, and 3) disturbance of nesting colonies would be strictly avoided within the nesting season by urban development during their construction activities.

Additionally, limitations of development within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone adjacent to the Sacramento River will also benefit this species because the bank swallow is more likely to nest and forage along the banks of the Sacramento River. In addition, the NBHCP does not authorize urban development on the water side of Sacramento River levees.

Impacts to Bank Swallow from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP No suitable bank swallow nesting habitat (i.e., streams with steep, erodible banks) occurs in the City’s Permit area. The agricultural fields, ditches, and canals in the Plan Area are considered suitable foraging habitat, but no suitable nesting habitat occurs in the area; therefore, bank swallows are likely to occur in the area during migration, but they are not likely to nest in the Plan Area. Therefore, development NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-39 April 2003
within the City of Sacramento would not have an effect on nesting bank swallows and minimal effects on the quantity of foraging habitat in the region.

TABLE VII-11

BANK SWALLOW CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES)
Habitat
Class
Baseline City of
Sacramento
Metro
Air Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Condition1
Overall
%
Change
Alfalfa 371 0 0 0 0 371 0.0%
Grassland 886 -427 0 -134 -560 325 63.2%
Non-rice
crops
16,686 -4,663 -325 -1,529 -6,517 10,169 39.1%
Pasture 674 -23 -22 -101 -147 527 21.8%
Ponds and
seasonally
wet areas
96 -7 -4 -10 -21 75 -21.9%
Rice 22,693 -970 -1,541 -5,577 -8,087 14,606 35.6%
Riparian 124 -24 0 0 -24 100 19.4%
Canals (all) 1,778 -117 -72 -215 -404 1,374 -22.7%
TOTAL 43,308 -6,231 -1,964 -7,566 -15,760 27,547 -36.4% Source: CH2MHill, February 2002
1 Future condition does not include the minimum 2,187.5 acres of Mitigation Lands to be restored as managed marsh.

Note: The above acreage is based on broad land use categories developed by CH2MHill using the Cals system. The land use categories represent potential habitat that bank swallow might use and does not represent habitat known to be occupied by the species.

Impacts to Bank Swallow from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Because the species is not known to occur in the Plan Area and because potentially suitable habitat in the Plan Area is of low quality and high quality habitat is available to the north of the Plan Area, it is unlikely that the Plan Area represents an area important to the continued existence or preservation of the species. As planned, a one-mile buffer from the Sacramento River would avoid impacts to the species.

Impacts to Bank Swallow from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP As a result of the limited occurrence of the species, and as a result of the fact that the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities will not typically result in take of the species were it to occur, the expected NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-40 April 2003
take of the species as a result of the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities are not likely to occur, and the adverse effects of such take will be insignificant.

Overall Impacts to Bank Swallow under NBHCP
No bank swallow nesting colonies are currently recorded in the NBHCP Plan Area; however, the species does nest to the north along the Sacramento and Feather Rivers and may occur in the NBHCP area over the life of the Plan. Consequently it may benefit from any riparian habitats protected or created under the NBHCP, which it could use for nesting or foraging. If the presence of this species in the Plan Area increases in the future, appropriate conservation measures could be implemented. Take of bank swallows in Natomas Basin is expected to be rare to infrequent during the life of the permits.

Although unlikely to occur in the NBHCP area, the combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre- construction surveys for Covered Species or their habitat), species-specific measures (i.e., avoidance of nesting sites during the nesting season both within development lands and reserve lands), and establishment of reserves within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone that encompasses nesting habitat for bank swallow on the Sacramento River side of the levee will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of bank swallows to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

10. Northwestern Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata) Significance of Plan Area to Northwestern Pond Turtle
The Northwestern Pond Turtle is both a State (CESA) Species of Special Concern and Federal (ESA) Species of Concern. The Plan Area supports agricultural supply and return ditches that may have suitable foraging and basking habitat for the species, however, the intense management of the adjacent agricultural land (i.e., plowing, planting, chemical application, flooding) probably precludes significant reproduction of the species in the area. Pond turtles have been observed in the Natomas East Main Drain canal (known as Steelhead Creek) to the east of the Plan area, and some have been reported on Conservancy lands.

Extent of Take of Northwestern Pond Turtle as a Result of Covered Activities Changes in potential habitat in the Natomas Basin for northwestern pond turtle with the implementation of the NBHCP are presented in Table 5-2 of the Tech Memo. These land use changes would be attributable to urban development in the Basin and would result in the overall net loss of potential habitat acreage for northwestern pond turtle of about 8,536 acres. In addition to direct impacts to acreage, the Tech Memo also reports that proximity to canals in urban areas may increase predation by cats and other domestic animals. The HCP does however, include buffer lands adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake which will assist in maintaining or improving the habitat for this species. In combination with the Conservation Plan NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-41 April 2003
which will create new habitat to support the species, additional measures are included to ensure that issuance of Incidental Take Permits will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the species.

TABLE VII-12

NORTHWESTERN POND TURTLE CHANGE IN POTENTIAL HABITAT (ACRES) Habitat
Class
Baseline City of
Sacramento
Metro
Air
Park
Sutter
County
Total
Change
Future
Condition1
Overall
%
Change
Ponds and
seasonally
wet areas
96 -7 -4 -10 -21 75 -21.9%
Rice 22,693 -970 -1,541 -5,577 -8,087 14,606 35.6%
Riparian 124 -24 0 0 -24 100 19.4%
Canals (all) 1,769 -117 -72 -215 -404 494 72.1%
TOTAL 24,691 -1,118 -1,617 -5,802 -8,536 16,155 -34.6%
1 Future condition does not include the minimum 2,187.5 acres of Mitigation Lands to be restored as managed marsh.

Source: CH2MHill, February 2002
Note: The above acreage is based on broad land use categories developed by CH2MHill using the Cals system. The land use categories represent potential habitat that northwestern pond turtle might use and does not represent habitat known to be occupied by the species.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of the Northwestern Pond Turtle The NBHCP includes measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of the giant garter snake.

Because the northwestern pond turtle shares some habitat similarities with the giant garter snake, these measures would also serve to protect the turtle. Specific measures include: timing restrictions, dewatering requirements, vegetation control management and the creation of managed marsh habitat.

Impacts to Northwestern Pond Turtle from Development in the City of Sacramento under NBHCP The Plan Area supports limited aquatic and upland breeding habitat for pond turtles. Most of the aquatic habitat occurs along managed canals and ditches. Potential breeding habitat is limited to undisturbed areas near aquatic habitats in the Plan Area. Development within the City of Sacramento will result in the loss of foraging and basking habitat for the turtle and may affect individuals residing in suitable habitat; however, development within the City of Sacramento is not anticipated to have a substantial overall effect on the species. A total of 1,118 acres of potential habitat for the turtle (including rice) will be impacted by Authorized Development in the City. Of this total, 970 acres are rice fields, which because of mechanical and chemical disturbance and lack of dry basking sites, is not considered high quality habitat for the turtle.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-42 April 2003
The remaining 148 acres of ponds, seasonally wet areas, riparian areas and canals represents a more realistic estimate of impacts to areas that may provide higher quality habitat. Authorized Development will be required to finance a reserve system, of which the City’s contribution would include 1,006 acres of managed marsh which will provide enhanced habitat for turtles.

Impacts to Northwestern Pond Turtle from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Development within Sutter County will result in the loss of foraging and basking habitat for the turtle and may affect individuals that are resident in suitable habitat; however, development within Sutter County is not anticipated to have a significant overall effect on the species. A total of 5,802 acres (including rice fields) of potential habitat for the turtle will be impacted by Authorized Development in Sutter County. Of this total, 5,577 acres are rice fields, which because of mechanical and chemical disturbance is not considered high quality habitat for the turtle. The remaining 225 acres of ponds, seasonally wet areas and canals represents a more realistic estimate of impacts to areas that may provide higher quality habitat.

Sutter County’s contribution to the reserve system will support 933.4 acres of managed marsh which will provide enhanced habitat for the turtle.

Impacts to Northwestern Pond Turtle from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP As a result of the limited occurrence of the species, and as a result of the fact that the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities will not typically result in take of the species were it to occur, the expected take of the species as a result of the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities are not likely to occur, and the adverse effects of such take will be insignificant.

Overall Impacts to Northwestern Pond Turtle under the NBHCP Low numbers of northwestern pond turtles may inhabit the aquatic habitats of the Natomas Basin, including the canals and ditches of the water conveyance system. If present in the Basin, pond turtles will benefit from the managed marsh and rice field habitats established within the NBHCP's reserve system. If present, take of the northwestern pond turtle could occur under the NBHCP as a result of habitat destruction during construction activities, including the removal of irrigation ditches and drains, and during ditches and drain maintenance. However, such take within the Plan Area will be minimized by the dewatering requirement and is therefore expected to be at relatively minor levels.