2025-01126 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) (Noticed on 11072025; Published 11072025; Passed for Publication 10212025; Published 10242025) [Updated 11/18/2025 @4:41 PM] - Part 7 — Sacramento City Council, December 2, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre-construction surveys for Covered Species and its habitat, preservation of the area adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake); species-specific measures (i.e., dewatering procedures requirement under giant garter snake mitigation); and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland habitat and suitable wetland habitat in the reserve system will effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to this species under the NBHCP.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-43 April 2003
These HCP measures will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of the species to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

11. California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) Significance of Plan Area to California Tiger Salamander The California tiger salamander (CTS) is a federal and state Candidate species. The California tiger salamander has not been documented either historically or presently from the Plan Area. Because potentially suitable habitat (i.e., seasonally ponded areas) are limited and because adjacent upland areas supporting ground squirrels are constrained by agricultural operations, it is unlikely that the Plan Area represents a significant area to the continued existence or preservation of the salamander.

Extent of Take of California Tiger Salamander as a Result of Covered Activities The NBHCP identifies small, relatively undisturbed areas of vernal pools in the Natomas Basin.

Currently, the Basin does not contain a significant component of vernal pools and implementation of the NBHCP is not expected to affect the continued existence of the vernal pool species. Because potentially suitable habitat for vernal pool species occurs in the Basin, however, vernal pool conservation and establishment of wetland and upland reserves would protect and enhance habitat values for vernal pool species.

In addition, there are 21 acres of seasonally wet areas and ponds within the Basin that would be affected by development which could result in direct impacts to the California tiger salamander, if the species is identified in the area. Finally, indirect impacts may result if urban development in proximity to ponds and wet areas limits access of the California tiger salamander to upland areas. While these impacts may occur it is important to note that the species has not been reported in the Natomas Basin to date.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of California Tiger Salamander The Land Use Agencies will implement the following measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of vernal pool species, including the tiger salamander: 1) report to USFWS development plans that affect vernal pools within the Basin, 2) require developers to conduct biological surveys for vernal pool species in the Permit Areas and to have a qualified biologist identify whether or not jurisdictional waters subject to separate Section 404 permits are present, and 3) if jurisdictional waters subject to Section 404 permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act are present, the applicant must apply for a 404 permit, and a separate consultation under Section 7 will be required if vernal pool obligate or associated species are discovered. However, all incidental take of vernal pool or wetland Covered Species - whether found within jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. or not - will be authorized through the Incidental Take Permits and NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-44 April 2003
the applicant will be required to implement the take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures provided for under Section A.4. of Chapter V of the NBHCP.

In addition to the above vernal pool actions, the HCP requires that TNBC will 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 of 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.

For habitat areas with seasonally wet areas and ponds, the required pre-construction surveys will also help identify if the California tiger salamander is present and any appropriate avoidance and mitigation standards available at that time from USFWS and CDFG will be employed.

Impacts to Tiger Salamander from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP The California tiger salamander has not been documented historically or currently in the Plan Area, and the Plan Area supports limited marginal habitat for the species.

Development in the City of Sacramento is not likely to adversely affect California tiger salamanders or threaten the preservation or conservation of this species because this salamander species is not known to occur in the Plan Area and the vernal pools in the Plan Area that represent potentially suitable habitat are not designated for development.

Impacts to Tiger Salamander from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Because the California tiger salamander has not been documented to occur either historically or presently within the Plan Area and because the Plan Area only supports limited marginal (i.e., disturbed) habitat for the species, development within Sutter County in anticipated to have a negligible effect on the species.

Impacts to Tiger Salamander 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.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-45 April 2003
Overall Impacts to California Tiger Salamander under NBHCP Tiger salamanders will benefit under the NBHCP from the vernal pool protections of the NBHCP, or, if necessary, from any mitigation implemented to offset development impacts in vernal pool areas. The species could also benefit from other wetland and upland habitats established within the NBHCP's reserve areas. However, California tiger salamander terrestrial habitat requirements are not clearly understood, and the extent to which the Plan's reserve areas can contribute to salamander conservation is similarly unclear.

Any such measures shall be incorporated into the NBHCP's conservation program through its Adaptive Management provisions. Because California tiger salamanders have not been known to historically or currently exist in the Permit Areas or in areas not currently designated for development (e.g., the vernal pool areas), take of this species under the NBHCP is expected to be rare to infrequent during the life of the permits.

Although not known to occur in the NBHCP area, suitable vernal pool and other seasonal wetland habitats for the California tiger salamander are present in the eastern portion of the area. The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre-construction surveys for Covered Species and their habitat), the vernal pool protections that are already incorporated into the NBHCP; and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and suitable wetland habitats in the reserve system will effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to this species under the NBHCP.

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

12. Western Spadefoot Toad (Scaphiopus)
Significance of Plan Area to Western Spadefoot Toad
The western spadefoot toad is a California Species of Special Concern which to date, has not known to occur in the Plan Area. Limited suitable habitat in the form of seasonal wetlands are present in the Plan Area. However, the highly disturbed nature of the Plan Area combined with the recurring disturbance of agricultural fields which support the majority of these seasonal wetlands probably precludes the presence of the species. Additionally, the majority of occurrences of spadefoot toad are in the San Joaquin Valley and southern Coast Range indicating that the Plan Area is not a significant area important to the continued existence or preservation of the species.

Extent of Take of Western Spadefoot Toad as a Result of Covered Activities The NBHCP identifies small, relatively undisturbed areas of vernal pools in the Natomas Basin.

Currently, the Basin does not contain a significant component of vernal pools and implementation of the NBHCP is not expected to affect the continued existence of the vernal pool species. Because potentially NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-46 April 2003
suitable habitat for vernal pool species occurs in the Basin, however, vernal pool conservation and establishment of wetland and upland reserves would protect and enhance habitat values for vernal pool species.

It is possible that other seasonally wet areas and ponds (non-vernal pool areas) could also provide habitat for the western spadefoot toad, although as noted above, this type of habitat is relatively limited in Natomas Basin and there are no records of the western spadefoot toad occurring in the Natomas Basin.

As such, issuance of Incidental Take Permits is not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of this species.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of the Western Spadefoot Toad The Land Use Agencies will implement the following measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of vernal pool species, including the Western spadefoot toad: 1) report to USFWS development plans that affect vernal pools within the Permit Areas to the USFWS, 2) require developers to conduct biological surveys for vernal pool species in the Permit Areas and to have a qualified biologist identify whether or not jurisdictional waters subject to separate Section 404 permits are present, and 3) if jurisdictional waters subject to Section 404 permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act are present, the applicant must apply for a 404 permit, and separate consultation and mitigation under Section 7 will be required if vernal pool obligate or associated species are discovered. However, all incidental take of vernal pool or wetland Covered Species - whether found within jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. or not - will be authorized through the Incidental Take Permits and the applicant will be required to implement the take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures provided for under Section A.4. of Chapter V of the NBHCP.

In addition to the above vernal pool actions, the HCP requires that TNBC will 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. Any such opportunities shall be incorporated into the NBHCP’s conservation program through its Adaptive Management provisions.

For habitat areas with seasonally wet areas and ponds, the required pre-construction surveys will also help identify if the western spadefoot toad is preseent and any appropriate avoidance and mitigation standards available at that time from USFWS and CDFG will be employed.

Impacts to Western Spadefoot Toad from Development in the City of Sacramento under NBHCP The western spadefoot toad has not been documented historically or currently in the Plan Area, and the Plan Area supports limited marginal habitat for the species. Development within the City of Sacramento is not likely to adversely affect western spadefoot toads or threaten the preservation or conservation of this species because this toad species is not known to occur in the Plan Area and the vernal pools in the Plan Area that represent potentially suitable habitat are not designated for development.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-47 April 2003
Impacts to Western Spadefoot Toad from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Because the species is not known to occur in the Plan Area or in Sutter County and because suitable habitat is limited in the Plan Area, development within Sutter County is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the continued existence or preservation of the species.

Impacts to Western Spadefoot Toad 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 Western Spadefoot Toad under NBHCP
Although not known to occur in the NBHCP area, suitable vernal pool and other seasonal wetland habitats for the western spadefoot toad is present in the eastern portion of the area. The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre-construction surveys for Covered Species and their habitat), the vernal pool protections that are already incorporated into the NBHCP; and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and suitable wetland habitats in the reserve system will effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to this species under the NBHCP.

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

13. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi )
Significance of Plan Area to Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
The vernal pool fairy shrimp is a Federally Listed Threatened Species. The Plan Area supports habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp in the form of roadside ditches and seasonal wetlands. The majority of the potential habitat for the species within the Plan Area is artificial in origin and lacks linkages to larger intact habitat areas (i.e., vernal pool grasslands) limiting the value of the Plan Area to the continued existence or preservation of the species.

Extent of Take of the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp as a Result of Covered Activities The NBHCP identifies small, relatively undisturbed areas of vernal pools in the Natomas Basin.

Currently, the Basin does not contain a significant component of vernal pools and implementation of the NBHCP is not expected to affect the continued existence of the vernal pool species. Because potentially NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-48 April 2003
suitable habitat for vernal pool species occurs in the Basin, however, vernal pool conservation and establishment of wetland and upland reserves would protect and enhance habitat for vernal pool species.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize and Mitigate Take of the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp The Land Use Agencies will implement the following measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of vernal pool species, including the vernal pool fairy shrimp: 1) report to USFWS development plans that affect vernal pools within the Permit Areas, 2) require developers to conduct biological surveys for vernal pool species in the Permit Areas and to have a qualified biologist identify whether or not jurisdictional waters subject to separate Section 404 permits are present, and 3) if jurisdictional waters subject to Section 404 permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act are present, the applicant must apply for a 404 permit, and separate consultation under Section 7 will be required if vernal pool obligate or associated species are discovered. However, all incidental take of vernal pool or wetland Covered Species - whether found within jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or not - will be authorized through the incidental take permits and the applicant will be required to implement the take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures provided for under Section A.4 of Chapter V of the NBHCP.

In addition, the HCP requires that TNBC will 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 Plan’s proposed reserve system. Any such opportunities shall be incorporated into the NBHCP’s conservation program through its Adaptive Management provisions.

Impacts to Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp from Development in the City of Sacramento under NBHCP Development within the City of Sacramento could result in the loss of suitable habitat for the species and this loss may have a substantial effect on individuals of this federally listed species; however, because of the limited extent, and relatively low quality, of the habitat present in the Plan Area, development within the City of Sacramento is not anticipated to have a substantial effect on the species as a whole. Also, the areas with the highest habitat quality are not in areas designated for development within the City of Sacramento. Implementation of compensatory mitigation that is consistent with USFWS programmatic guidelines for large brachiopod species may be required to offset impacts on the species.

Impacts to Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Development within Sutter County will result in the loss of suitable habitat for the species and this loss may have a significant effect on individuals of this federally listed species; however, because of the limited extent and relatively low quality of the habitat present in the Plan Area, development within Sutter County is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the species as a whole.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-49 April 2003
Impacts to Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp 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 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp under NBHCP Vernal pool fairy shrimp could benefit under implementation from the vernal pool protections of the NBHCP, or if necessary, from any mitigation implemented to offset development impacts in vernal pool areas. The species could also benefit from other wetland and upland habitats established in the NBHCP’s reserve areas. However, vernal pool fairy shrimp occurrence and distribution in the Plan Area is not well understood, and the extent to which the Plan’s reserve areas can contribute to vernal pool fairy shrimp conservation is similarly unclear. Any such measures shall be incorporated into the NBHCP’s conservation program through Adaptive Management provisions.

This species is likely to occur in the NBHCP area and suitable vernal pool and seasonal wetland habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp is present in scattered locations of the Plan Area. The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre-construction surveys for Covered Species and their habitats); the vernal pool protections incorporated into the NBHCP; and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and suitable wetland habitats (i.e., seasonal wetlands) in the reserve system will effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to this species under the NBHCP. These HCP measures will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of the species to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

14. Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp (Lepidurus packardi)
Significance of Plan Area to Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp The vernal pool tadpole shrimp is a Federally Listed Endangered Species. There have been 154 reported occurrences of this species in California, of which 54 reports were in Sacramento County and four (4) were in Sutter County (CDFG 2001). The Plan Area supports habitat for the vernal pool tadpole shrimp in the form of roadside ditches and seasonal wetlands. The majority of the habitat for the species within the Plan Area is artificial in origin and lacks linkages to larger intact habitat areas (i.e., vernal pool grasslands) limiting the value of the Plan Area to the continued existence or preservation of the species.

Extent of Take of Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp as a Result of Covered Activities The NBHCP identifies small, relatively undisturbed areas of vernal pools in the Natomas Basin.

Currently, the Basin does not contain a significant component of vernal pools and implementation of the NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-50 April 2003
NBHCP is not expected to affect the continued existence of the vernal pool species. Because potentially suitable habitat for vernal pool species occurs in the Basin, however, vernal pool conservation and establishment of wetland and upland reserves would protect and enhance habitat for vernal pool species.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of the Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp The Land Use Agencies will implement the following measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of vernal pool species, including the vernal pool tadpole shrimp: 1) report to USFWS development plans that affect vernal pools within the Permit Areas, 2) require developers to conduct biological surveys for vernal pool species in the Permit Areas and to have a qualified biologist identify whether or not jurisdictional waters are subject to separate Section 404 permits are present, and 3) if jurisdictional waters subject to Section 404 permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act are present, the applicant must apply for a 404 permit, and separate consultation under Section 7 will be required if vernal pool obligate or associated species are discovered. However, all incidental take of vernal pool or wetland Covered Species - whether found within jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or not - will be authorized through the incidental take permits and the applicant will be required to implement the take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures provided for under Section A.4 of Chapter V of the NBHCP.

Impacts to Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp from Development in the City of Sacramento under NBHCP Development within the City of Sacramento could result in the loss of suitable habitat for the species and this loss may have a substantial effect on individuals of this federally listed species; however, because of the limited extent and relatively low quality of the habitat present in the Plan Area, development within the City of Sacramento is not anticipated to have a substantial effect on the species as a whole. Also, the areas with the highest habitat quality are not in areas designated for development within the City of Sacramento. Implementation of compensatory mitigation that is consistent with USFWS programmatic guidelines for large brachiopod species may be required to offset impacts on the species.

Impacts to Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Development within Sutter County will result in the loss of suitable habitat for the species and this loss may have a significant effect on individuals of this federally listed species; however, because of the limited extent and relatively low quality of the habitat present in the Plan Area, development within Sutter County is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the species as a whole. Implementation of NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-51 April 2003
compensatory mitigation that is consistent with USFWS programmatic guidelines for large branchiopod species may be required to offset impacts.

Impacts to Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP Because the species has not been documented to occur within the Permit Areas, 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 Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp under NBHCP Vernal pool tadpole shrimp could benefit under implementation from the vernal pool protections of the NBHCP, or, if necessary, from any mitigation implemented to offset development impacts in vernal pool areas. The species could also benefit from other wetland and upland habitats established in the NBHCP’s reserve areas. However, vernal pool tadpole shrimp occurrence and distribution in the Plan Area is not well understood, and the extent to which the Plan’s reserve areas can contribute to vernal pool tadpole shrimp conservation is similarly unclear. Any such measures shall be incorporated into the NBHCP’s conservation program through Adaptive Management provisions.

Although not known to occur in the NBHCP area, marginally suitable vernal pool habitat for the vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) is present in scattered locations in the area. The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre-construction surveys for Covered Species and their habitat); the vernal pool protections incorporated into the NBHCP; and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and suitable wetland habitats (i.e., seasonal wetlands) in the reserve system will effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to this species under the NBHCP. These HCP measures will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of the species to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

If implemented, this combination of measures will minimize and fully mitigate potential future effects to the vernal pool tadpole shrimp, if the species occupies the NBHCP in the future, and will also protect vernal pool tadpole shrimp habitat in the NBHCP Plan Area.

15. Midvalley Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta n.sp.)
Significance of Plan Area to Midvalley Fairy Shrimp
This species has no official State or Federal listing however it occurs in vernal pool habitats that support associated fairy shrimp which are either threatened or endangered. Although seasonal wetlands present in the Plan Area may provide suitable habitat for the species, it has not been documented in the area nor has the species been documented from elsewhere in Sutter County. The lack of known NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-52 April 2003
occurrences and the generally disturbed nature of the Plan Area probably preclude the presence of significant populations of the species. Therefore the Plan Area does not represent an area important to the continued existence or preservation of the species.

Extent of Take of the Midvalley Fairy Shrimp as a Result of Covered Activities The NBHCP identifies small, relatively undisturbed areas of vernal pools in the Natomas Basin.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of the Midvalley Fairy Shrimp The Land Use Agencies will implement the following measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of vernal pool species, including the midvalley fairy shrimp: 1) report to USFWS development plans that affect vernal pools within the Permit Areas, 2) require developers to conduct biological surveys for vernal pool species in the Permit Areas and to have a qualified biologist identify whether or not jurisdictional waters are subject to separate Section 404 permits are present, 3) if jurisdictional waters subject to Section 404 permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act are present, the applicant must apply for a 404 permit, and separate consultation under Section 7 will be required if vernal pool obligate or associated species are discovered. However, all incidental take of vernal pool or wetland Covered Species - whether found within jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or not - will be authorized through the incidental take permits and the applicant will be required to implement the take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures provided for under Section A.4 of Chapter V of the NBHCP.

Impacts to Midvalley Fairy Shrimp from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP Development within the City of Sacramento could result in the loss of suitable habitat for the species and this loss may have a substantial effect on individuals of this special-status species; however, because of the limited extent and relatively low quality of the habitat present in the Plan Area, City development is not anticipated to have a substantial effect on the species as a whole. Also, the areas with the highest habitat quality are not in areas designated for City development. Implementation of compensatory mitigation that NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-53 April 2003
is consistent with USFWS programmatic guidelines for large brachiopod species may be required to offset impacts on the species.

Impacts to Midvalley Fairy Shrimp from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Because the midvalley fairy shrimp has not been documented to occur either historically or presently within the Plan Area and because the Plan Area only supports marginal (i.e., disturbed) habitat for the species, development within Sutter County is anticipated to have a negligible effect on the species.

Impacts to Midvalley Fairy Shrimp from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP Because the species has not been documented to occur within the Permit Areas, 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 Midvalley Fairy Shrimp under NBHCP
Midvalley fairy shrimp could benefit under implementation from the vernal pool protections of the NBHCP, or if necessary, from any mitigation implemented to offset development impacts in vernal pool areas. The species could also benefit from other wetland and upland habitats established in the NBHCP’s reserve areas. However, midvalley fairy shrimp occurrence and distribution in the Plan Area is not well understood, and the extent to which the Plan’s reserve areas can contribute to midvalley fairy shrimp conservation is similarly unclear. Any such measures shall be incorporated into the NBHCP’s conservation program through Adaptive Management provisions.

Although not known, or expected to occur in the NBHCP area due to species range and known habitat affinities, some marginally suitable vernal pool habitat for the midvalley fairy shrimp is present in the eastern portion of the area. The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre-construction surveys for Covered Species and their habitat); the vernal pool protections incorporated into the NBHCP; and long- term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and suitable wetland habitats (i.e., seasonal wetlands) in the reserve system will effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to this species under the NBHCP. These HCP measures will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of the species to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

If implemented, this combination of measures will minimize and fully mitigate potential future effects to the midvalley fairy shrimp, if the species occupies the NBHCP in the future, and will also protect potential midvalley fairy shrimp habitat in the NBHCP Plan Area.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-54 April 2003

16. Delta Tule Pea (Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii)
Significance of Plan Area to Delta Tule Pea
The Delta tule pea is a Federal Species of Concern. The vast majority of the known Delta tule pea occurrences are in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and these occurrences are generally stable or increasing in size. This species has not been documented from the Plan Area and suitable habitat for the species is limited in extent. Because the species is not known from the Plan Area and because the species is currently relatively stable within the center of its historic range in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the Plan Area does not represent an area important to the continued existence or preservation of the species.

Extent of Take of the Delta Tule Pea as a Result of Covered Activities Potential habitat for the Delta tule pea is provided by ponds and marsh habitat reserves. According to Table 5-13 of the Tech Memo, a total of 1,874 acres of potential habitat for the Delta tule pea exists in the Basin comprised of ponds and seasonally wet areas, and canals. Impacts associated with development would effect a total of 425 acres, of which 124 acres are located in the City of Sacramento, 225 acres are located in Sutter County and 76 acres are located in Metro Air Park.

TABLE VII-13

DELTA TULE PEA 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%
Canals (all) 1,778 -117 -72 -215 -404 1,374 -22.7%
TOTAL 1,874 -124 -76 -225 -425 1,449 -22.7%
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 delta tule pea might use and does not represent habitat known to be occupied by the species.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize and Mitigate Take of the Delta Tule Pea The NBHCP includes a measure for TNBC to consider introducing the Delta tule pea into suitable locations in the Natomas Basin. Introducing the Delta tule pea into the system of habitat reserves would NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-55 April 2003
benefit the species by increasing population size and distribution. In addition, the NBHCP requires TNBC to monitor any known populations of covered plant species within the NBHCP area.

Impacts to Delta Tule from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP The Delta tule pea has not been documented in the Plan Area and potential habitat is limited to emergent marsh areas in ditches and canals. The NBHCP requires the creation and management of wetland and upland reserves and the enhanced maintenance and operation of canals and ditches in the Plan Area may result in enhanced habitat that could support this species. Potential habitat impacts in the City of Sacramento are 124 acres of canals and seasonally wet areas. In turn, the City development will contribute 1,006 acres of managed marsh to the reserve system. Therefore, potential impacts to the Delta tule pea under the NBHCP are not anticipated to be substantial.

Impacts to Delta Tule Pea from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Because the species has not been documented to occur either historically or presently within the Plan Area and because the Plan Area only supports a limited extent of suitable habitat for the species, development within Sutter County is not anticipated to have a substantial effect on the continued existence or preservation of the species. Potential habitat impacts in the Sutter County are 225 acres of canals and seasonally wet areas. In turn, the Sutter County development will contribute 933.4 acres of managed marsh to the reserve system.

Impacts to Delta Tule Pea from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under the 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 Delta Tule Pea under NBHCP
Although not known to occur in the NBHCP area, suitable habitat for the Delta tule pea is present wherever emergent marsh occurs in the area. The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre- construction surveys for Covered Species and their habitat); species-specific measures (i.e., potential for species introduction into suitable habitats in the reserve system); and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and suitable wetland habitats (i.e., emergent marsh) in the reserve system will effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to this species under the NBHCP. A total of 425 acres of potential habitat in the Basin would be impacted by Authorized Development which will be compensated by the creation of 2,187 acres of managed marsh reserve areas. These HCP measures will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of the species 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-56 April 2003

7. Sanford's Arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii)
Significance of Plan Area to Sanford’s Arrowhead
Sanford’s arrowhead is a Federal Species of Concern. The Plan Area is not known to support Sanford’s arrowhead; however, suitable habitat is present in the Plan Area in the form of unmaintained agricultural supply and return ditches. Because the Plan Area is not known to support the species and because the majority of suitable habitat in the Plan Area is maintained for water conveyance (i.e., cleared of vegetation) the Plan Area does not represent an area important to the continued existence or preservation of the species.

Extent of Take of Sanford’s Arrowhead as a Result of Covered Activities Potential habitat for the Sanford’s arrowhead is provided by ponds and marsh habitat reserves.

According to Table 5-14 of the Tech Memo, 1,874 acres of ponds, seasonally wet areas and canals which could serve as potential habitat are included in the Basin. The Future scenario, assuming 17,500 acres of urban development, shows impacts to 425 acres of potential habitat. The NBHCP mitigation program will create 2,187.5 acres of managed marsh reserves resulting in an improvement to Sanford’s arrowhead habitat of 1,762 acres. Overall habitat conditions are expected to improve for the Sanford’s arrowhead.

TABLE VII-14
SANFORD’S ARROWHEAD 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%
Canals (all) 1,778 -117 -72 -215 -404 1,374 -22.7%
TOTAL 1,874 -124 -76 -225 -425 1,449 -22.7%
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 Sanford’s arrowhead might use and does not represent habitat known to be occupied by the species.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-57 April 2003
Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of the Sanford’s Arrowhead The NBHCP includes a measure for TNBC to consider introducing Sanford’s arrowhead into suitable locations in the Natomas Basin. Introducing Sanford’s arrowhead into the system of habitat reserves would benefit the species by increasing population size and distribution. In addition, TNBC shall monitor any known populations of covered plant species within the NBHCP area.

Impacts to Sanford’s Arrowhead from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP The Sanford’s arrowhead has not been documented in the Plan Area and potential habitat is limited to wetlands in ditches and canals. The NBHCP requires the creation and management of wetland and upland reserves and the enhanced maintenance and operation of canals and ditches in the Plan Area may result in enhanced habitat that could support this species. Therefore, potential impacts to the Sanford’s arrowhead under the NBHCP are not anticipated to be substantial and the creation of new habitat in the reserve system may benefit the species. Authorized Development in the City may impact 124 acres of potential habitat for Sanford’s arrowhead which is compensated by the City’s contribution to the managed marsh reserve system of 1,006 acres.

Impacts to Sanford’s Arrowhead from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Because the species has not been documented to occur either historically or presently within the Plan Area and because the Plan Area only supports a limited extent of suitable habitat for the species, development within Sutter County is not anticipated to have a substantial effect on the continued existence or preservation of the species. Authorized Development in the Sutter County may impact 225 acres of potential habitat for Sanford’s arrowhead which is compensated by the County’s contribution to the managed marsh reserve system of 933.4 acres.

Impacts to Sanford’s Arrowhead from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP Because the species has not been documented to occur either historically or presently in the Plan Areas, 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 Sanford’s Arrowhead under NBHCP
Although not known to occur in the NBHCP area, suitable habitat for Sanford’s arrowhead is present wherever seasonal marsh occurs in the area. The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre- construction surveys for Covered Species and their habitat); species-specific measures (i.e., potential for species introduction into suitable habitats in the reserve system); and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and suitable wetland habitats (i.e., emergent marsh and seasonal wetland) in the NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-58 April 2003
reserve system will effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to this species under the NBHCP.

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

18. Boggs Lake Hedge-Hyssop (Gratiaola heterosepala)
Significance of Plan Area to Boggs Lake Hedge-Hyssop
This species occupies a variety of seasonally wet habitats including vernal pools and seasonally inundated lake margins (Skinner and Pavlik 1994, Hickman 1993). Bogg’s Lake hedge- hyssop has not been found in highly disturbed or altered landscapes supporting seasonal wetlands such as the lands present within the Plan Area (CDFG 1992b). Because the Plan Area is highly disturbed and because the species has not been previously documented from the area, it can be presumed that the Plan Area is not significant in the continued existence or preservation of the species.

Extent of Take of the Boggs Lake Hedge-Hyssop as a Result of Covered Activities The NBHCP identifies small, relatively undisturbed areas of vernal pools in the Natomas Basin.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of the Boggs Lake Hedge-Hyssop The Land Use Agencies will implement the following measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of vernal pool species, including the Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop: 1) report to USFWS development plans that affect vernal pools within the Permit Areas, 2) require developers to conduct biological surveys for vernal pool species in the Permit Areas and to have a qualified biologist identify whether or not jurisdictional waters are subject to separate Section 404 permits are present, 3) if jurisdictional waters subject to Section 404 permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act are present, the applicant must apply for a 404 permit, and separate consultation under Section 7 will be required if vernal pool obligate or associated species are discovered. However, all incidental take of vernal pool or wetland Covered Species - whether found within jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or not - will be authorized through the incidental take permits and the applicant will be required to implement the take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures provided for under Section A.4 of Chapter V of the NBHCP.

In addition, 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 NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-59 April 2003
including but not limited to, the introduction of Boss’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.

Impacts to Boggs Lake Hedge-Hyssop from Development in the City of Sacramento under NBHCP Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop has not been documented in the Plan Area. Development within the City of Sacramento could result in the loss of suitable habitat (i.e., seasonal wetlands and vernal pools) for the species. This habitat loss could result in the loss of individuals of this special-status plant species; however, because of the limited extent and relatively low quality of the habitat present in the Plan Area, City development is not anticipated to have a substantial effect on the species as a whole. Also, the areas with the highest habitat quality are not in areas designated for urban development.

Impacts to Boggs Lake Hedge-Hyssop from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Because Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop has not been documented to occur either historically or presently within the Plan Area and because the Plan Area has been significantly disturbed, it is unlikely that the species would be present, therefore development within Sutter County is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the species.

Impacts to Boggs Lake Hedge-Hyssop from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP Because the species has not been documented to occur either historically or presently in the Plan Areas, 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 Boggs Lake Hedge-Hyssop under NBHCP
Although not known, or expected, to occur in the NBHCP area, marginally suitable habitat for the Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop is present in the eastern portion of the area. The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre-construction surveys for Covered Species or their habitat), the vernal pool protections incorporated into the NBHCP, and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and suitable wetland habitats (i.e., seasonal wetlands) in the reserve system will effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to this species under the NBHCP. These HCP measures will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of the species 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-60 April 2003

19. Sacramento Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia viscida)
Significance of Plan Area to Sacramento Orcutt Grass
Because the species has not been documented from the Plan Area and because suitable habitat for the species is not present, the Plan Area is not considered significant in the continued existence or preservation of the species.

Extent of Take of Sacramento Orcutt Grass as a Result of Covered Activities The NBHCP identifies small, relatively undisturbed areas of vernal pools in the Natomas Basin.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of the Sacramento Orcutt Grass The Land Use Agencies will implement the following measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of vernal pool species, including the Sacramento orcutt grass: 1) report to USFWS development plans that affect vernal pools within the Permit Areas, 2) require developers to conduct biological surveys for vernal pool species in the Permit Areas and to have a qualified biologist identify whether or not jurisdictional waters are subject to separate Section 404 permits are present, 3) if jurisdictional waters subject to Section 404 permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act are present, the applicant must apply for a 404 permit, and separate consultation under Section 7 will be required if vernal pool obligate or associated species are discovered. However, all incidental take of vernal pool or wetland Covered Species - whether found within jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or not - will be authorized through the incidental take permits and the applicant will be required to implement the take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures provided for under Section A.4 of Chapter V of the NBHCP.

In addition, 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 Boss’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.

Impacts to Sacramento Orcutt Grass from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP Sacramento orcutt grass has not been documented in the Plan Area and potential habitat is limited to few vernal pools on the far eastern edge of the Plan Area. Development within the City of Sacramento NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-61 April 2003
could result in the loss of marginally suitable habitat for the Sacramento orcutt grass in the form of seasonal wetlands and vernal pools. This habitat loss may result in the loss of individuals of this federally listed species; however, because of the limited extent of potential habitat and relatively low quality of the habitat present in the Plan Area, City development is not anticipated to have an effect on the species as a whole.

Also, the areas with the highest habitat quality are not in areas designated for development.

Impacts to Sacramento Orcutt Grass from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Because Sacramento orcutt grass has not been documented to occur either historically or presently within the Plan Area and because the Plan Area does not support suitable habitat for the species, development within Sutter County is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the species.

Impacts to Sacramento Orcutt Grass from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP Because the species has not been documented to occur either historically or presently in the Plan Areas, 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 Sacramento Orcutt Grass under NBHCP
The Plan Area generally does not include vernal pools with the required high terrace formation that supports this species. Vernal pool restoration programs could provide enhanced habitat for this species.

Although not known, or expected, to occur in the NBHCP area, some marginally suitable deep vernal pool habitat for the Sacramento orcutt grass is present in the eastern portion of the area. The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre-construction surveys for Covered Species and their habitat); the vernal pool protections incorporated into the NBHCP; and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and suitable wetland habitats (i.e., seasonal wetlands) in the reserve system will effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to this species under the NBHCP. These HCP measures will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of the species to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

20. Slender Orcutt Grass (Orcuttia tenuis )
Significance of Plan Area to Slender Orcutt Grass
Because the species has not been documented from the Plan Area and because suitable habitat for the species is not present, the Plan Area is not considered significant in the continued existence or preservation of the species.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-62 April 2003
Extent of Take of the Slender Orcutt Grass as a Result of Covered Activities The NBHCP identifies small, relatively undisturbed areas of vernal pools in the Natomas Basin.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of the Slender Orcutt Grass The Land Use Agencies will implement the following measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of vernal pool species, including the slender orcutt grass: 1) report to USFWS development plans that affect vernal pools within the Permit Areas, 2) require developers to conduct biological surveys for vernal pool species in the Permit Areas and to have a qualified biologist identify whether or not jurisdictional waters are subject to separate Section 404 permits are present, 3) if jurisdictional waters subject to Section 404 permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act are present, the applicant must apply for a 404 permit, and separate consultation under Section 7 will be required if vernal pool obligate or associated species are discovered. However, all incidental take of vernal pool or wetland Covered Species - whether found within jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or not - will be authorized through the incidental take permits and the applicant will be required to implement the take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures provided for under Section A.4 of Chapter V of the NBHCP.

In addition. 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 Boss’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.

Impacts to Slender Orcutt Grass from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP Slender orcutt grass has not been documented in the Plan Area and potential habitat is limited to few vernal pools on the far eastern edge of the Plan Area. Development within the City of Sacramento could result in the loss of marginally suitable habitat for the slender orcutt grass in the form of seasonal wetlands and vernal pools. This habitat loss may result in the loss of individuals of this federally listed species; however, because of the limited extent of potential habitat and relatively low quality of the habitat present in the Plan Area, City development is not anticipated to have an effect on the species as a whole.

Also, the areas with the highest habitat quality are not in areas designated for development.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-63 April 2003
Impacts to Slender Orcutt Grass from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Because slender orcutt grass has not been documented to occur either historically or presently within the Plan Area and because the Plan Area does not support suitable habitat for the species, development within Sutter County is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the species.

Impacts to Slender Orcutt Grass from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP Because the species has not been documented to occur either historically or presently in the Plan Areas, 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 Slender Orcutt Grass under NBHCP
The Plan Area generally does not include vernal pools with the required high terrace formation that supports this species. Vernal pool restoration programs could provide enhanced habitat for this species.

Due to the current lack of suitable habitat and the lack of known occurrences of this species, development and other Covered Activities under the NBHCP are not likely to effect the continued existence or preservation of this species. These HCP measures will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of the species to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

21. Colusa Grass (Neostapfia colusana)
Significance of Plan Area to Colusa Grass
Although Colusa grass is known to occur in large vernal pools with clay soils similar to those soils occurring in the Plan Area, past disturbances (i.e., leveling and filling of large vernal pools) precludes this species occurrence. There are no known occurrences of this species within the Plan Area. The Plan Area is not considered significant in the continued existence or preservation of the species.

Extent of Take of the Colusa Grass as a Result of Covered Activities The NBHCP identifies small, relatively undisturbed areas of vernal pools in the Natomas Basin.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-64 April 2003
Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of the Colusa Grass The Land Use Agencies will implement the following measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of vernal pool species, including the Colusa grass: 1) report to USFWS development plans that affect vernal pools within the Permit Areas, 2) require developers to conduct biological surveys for vernal pool species in the Permit Areas and to have a qualified biologist identify whether or not jurisdictional waters are subject to separate Section 404 permits are present, 3) if jurisdictional waters subject to Section 404 permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act are present, the applicant must apply for a 404 permit, and separate consultation under Section 7 will be required if vernal pool obligate or associated species are discovered. However, all incidental take of vernal pool or wetland Covered Species - whether found within jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or not - will be authorized through the incidental take permits and the applicant will be required to implement the take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures provided for under Section A.4 of Chapter V of the NBHCP.

In addition, 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 Boss’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.

Impacts to Colusa Grass from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP Colusa grass has not been documented in the Plan Area and potential habitat is limited to few vernal pools on the far eastern edge of the Plan Area. Development within the City of Sacramento could result in the loss of marginally suitable habitat for this species in the form of seasonal wetlands and vernal pools.

This habitat loss may result in the loss of individuals of this federally listed species; however, because of the limited extent of potential habitat and relatively low quality of the habitat present in the Plan Area, City development is not anticipated to have an effect on the species as a whole. Also, the areas with the highest habitat quality are not in areas designated for development.

Impacts to Colusa Grass from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Because suitable habitat does not occur in the Plan Area, no impacts to Colusa grass are expected from the implementation of the NBHCP. However, lands within the Plan Area are suitable (i.e., basin rim landforms with clayey soils) for restoration and creation of suitable Colusa grass habitat.

Impacts to Colusa Grass from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP Because the species has not been documented to occur either historically or presently in the Plan Areas, and as a result of the fact that the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities will not typically result in take NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-65 April 2003
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 Colusa Grass under NBHCP
Although not known, or expected, to occur in the NBHCP area, marginally suitable habitat for Colusa grass is present in the eastern portion of the area. The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre-construction surveys for Covered Species or their habitat), the vernal pool protections incorporated into the NBHCP, and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and suitable wetland habitats (i.e., seasonal wetlands) in the reserve system will effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to this species under the NBHCP. These HCP measures will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of the species to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

22. Legenere (Legenere limosa)
Significance of Plan Area to Legenere
Although seasonal wetlands present in the Plan Area may provide suitable habitat for the species, it has not been documented in the Plan Area. The lack of known occurrences and the generally disturbed nature of the Plan Area probably preclude the presence of significant populations of the species, therefore the Plan Area does not represent an area important to the continued existence or preservation of the species.

Extent of Take of the Legenere as a Result of Covered Activities The NBHCP identifies small, relatively undisturbed areas of vernal pools in the Natomas Basin.

Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Take of the Legenere The Land Use Agencies will implement the following measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate take of vernal pool species, including the legenere: 1) report to USFWS development plans that affect vernal pools within the Permit Areas, 2) require developers to conduct biological surveys for vernal pool species in the Permit Areas and to have a qualified biologist identify whether or not jurisdictional waters are subject to separate Section 404 permits are present, 3) if jurisdictional waters subject to Section 404 permit requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act are present, the applicant must apply for a 404 permit, and NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-66 April 2003
separate consultation under Section 7 will be required if vernal pool obligate or associated species are discovered. However, all incidental take of vernal pool or wetland Covered Species - whether found within jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or not - will be authorized through the incidental take permits and the applicant will be required to implement the take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures provided for under Section A.4 of Chapter V of the NBHCP.

In addition, 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 Boss’s Lake hedge-hyssop, Sacramento orcutt grass, slender orcutt grass, and legenere into the vernal pool areas or other suitable locations in the NBHCP Plan Area.

Impacts to Legenere from Development within the City of Sacramento under NBHCP Development within the City of Sacramento could result in the loss of suitable habitat for the legenere. This habitat loss may have a substantial effect on individuals of this special-status species; however, because of the limited extent and relatively low quality of the habitat present in the Plan Area, City development is not anticipated to have a substantial effect on the species as a whole. Also, the areas with the highest habitat quality are not in areas designated for development.

Impacts to Legenere from Development within Sutter County under NBHCP Because legenere has not been documented to occur either historically or presently within the Plan Area and because the Plan Area only supports marginal (i.e., disturbed) habitat for the species, development within Sutter County is not anticipated to have a substantial effect on the species.

Impacts to Legenere from the Water Agencies’ Covered Activities under NBHCP Because the species has not been documented to occur either historically or presently in the Plan Areas, 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 Legenere under NBHCP
Legenere is found along lake shores and in vernal pools, and other seasonally inundated habitat areas. The Plan Area does not currently support deep vernal pools that remain inundated for significant periods during the winter and spring. However, creation of wetland reserves may result in enhanced habitat that could support this species.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-67 April 2003
Although not known to occur in the NBHCP area, suitable vernal pool and seasonal wetland habitat for legenere is present in the eastern portion of the area. The combination of the overall measures (i.e., pre-construction surveys for Covered Species and their habitat); the vernal pool protections incorporated into the NBHCP; and long-term protection, creation, and enhancement of upland and suitable wetland habitats (i.e., seasonal wetlands) in the reserve system will effectively compensate for potential adverse effects to this species under the NBHCP. These HCP measures will avoid, minimize and mitigate take of the species to the maximum extent practicable in accordance with the ESA and will minimize and fully mitigate effects in accordance with CESA.

E. TAKE AS A RESULT OF INDIRECT KILLING OR INJURY
The impacts of urban development and other Covered Activities in the Natomas Basin on Covered Species would not be through direct killing or injury as a result of construction and O&M activities alone.

For example, in some cases, individual garter snakes or other Covered Species may escape direct death or injury by fleeing the construction area, but may subsequently perish if they do not reach suitable, available habitat. Similarly, some animals may reach alternate habitat but perish from competition or reproductive exclusion if the habitat reached by refugees is already at carrying capacity, or, animals already inhabiting such habitats may perish as a result of the same increased competition. Other mortality factors that may come into play as a result of urban development are road kills and depredations by domestic pets.

For example, giant garter snakes are susceptible to road kills (see Section II.C.2); thus, increased traffic in the Natomas Basin as a result of development may increase this mortality factor for snakes as well as other wildlife in areas near or adjacent to development. Also, human population increases associated with development will likely increase pet populations, which, in turn, may increase wildlife mortality in some areas as a result of predation by domestic dogs and cats. Because indirect take will predominantly occur within areas of Authorized Development, such take has already been largely accounted for within the discussions of impacts to individual species. Some minor additional take beyond those levels previously discussed could occur along the margins of Authorized Development and throughout the Basin due to an overall increase in vehicular traffic.

F. EFFECTS OF THE PLAN ON LONG-TERM SURVIVAL OF WETLAND-DEPENDENT SPECIES The giant garter snake is the principal wetland dependent species expected to be significantly affected by habitat loss as a result of urban development in the Permit Areas. However, the issuance of incidental take permits for the Permit Areas is not expected to jeopardize the long-term survival of the giant garter snake. This is because the Plan will result in a reduction of take due to: (1) the NBHCP’s establishment of a permanent system of managed rice lands and wetlands designed and managed specifically for consistency with giant garter snake biology; (2) the Plan’s emphasis on hydrological connectivity between existing and newly created habitat areas within the Basin; and (3) the Plan includes substantial measures to avoid and minimize take by the Land Use Agencies and TNBC.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-68 April 2003
Although the NBHCP will protect and enhance wetland and upland habitat values in the Basin, urban development will result in a net conversion of agricultural land (rice lands and row crops) to urban uses. Nevertheless, over the term of the permits, continued rice farming and construction and management of managed marshes are expected to play an essential role in sustaining long-term populations of giant garter snakes in the Basin as well as of other Covered Species utilizing the same habitat. In the event that new information indicates that the Plan's current provisions are not optimal for protecting giant garter snakes and other wetland species, the Plan's Adaptive Management, recovery plan adaptation, 9,000-acre and individual Land Use Agency Independent Mid-Point Review provisions will provide for significant corrective measures to be implemented over the 50 year term of the permits.

In the Natomas Basin, the current giant garter snake population is believed to have been maintained over the past 20 years or so in a land use pattern of about 50% rice and 50% other irrigated non-wetland crops. The extent of rice land in the Basin, both actively farmed and fallow, has been somewhat over 21,000 acres in recent years (see Chapter III). If development occurs as described in the NBHCP, but the current pattern of rice, non-wetland irrigated crops, and the present water conveyance system (the ditches and drains) otherwise remain, the Basin's giant garter snake population would reasonably be expected to persist into the future, if considered together with the conservation program for the snake as described in the Plan.

The best information available from the rice industry indicates that good growing conditions and a strong future market for rice imply a stable, continuing level of rice farming in northern California. The Natomas Basin is reputed to be prime rice growing land. However, the viability of rice farming depends on a federal price subsidy program and on the availability of plentiful summer irrigation water (see Chapter III), and conditions changing these factors could lead to a reduction or elimination of rice farming from the Basin over the long term.

If rice farming were to cease in the Basin, the remaining non-wetland cropland and irrigation system would probably be insufficient to sustain the giant garter snake population. This conclusion is based, in part, on the fact that giant garter snakes used to inhabit rice growing regions in northern San Joaquin Valley, but have largely disappeared since the rice lands were converted to other crops. Similarly, if an excessive proportion of the Basin were to be urbanized, resulting in extensive losses of rice lands and other snake habitats, the giant garter snake population might decline to the point of extirpation. The impacts of urban development on the giant garter snake in the Basin may result from three sources (see Section VII.D.1 above): (1) take of individual snakes due to the activities described in the Plan; (2) take as a result of habitat loss; and (3) take as a result of indirect effects of development, including increased traffic, domestic animal predation, water pollution, and similar effects associated with urbanization. In addition, if urban development occurred at levels that ultimately would substantially reduce or eliminate agriculture in the Basin, the components of the irrigation system (e.g., ditches, drains, canals) that currently support giant garter snakes and the extent of the system would likely also decline or disappear, probably resulting in extirpation of the giant garter snake from the Basin (winter drainage alone does not provide sufficient giant garter snake habitat).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-69 April 2003
Anticipated take of giant garter snakes resulting from urban development activities in the Permit Areas are described in Section VII.D.1 above. This section considers the effects of proposed development on overall wetland acreage available in the Basin through time, and the likelihood that rice farming will persist in the Basin over the long-term.

One measure of gross habitat value in the Basin is the acreage of extant wetlands (i.e., marsh lands and rice lands). However, the conversion of rice land to urban uses is not necessarily the full measure of the impacts of urban growth. It is the matrix of rice land, non-rice land, other wetlands, and the irrigation and drainage system that constitutes present giant garter snake habitat in the Basin. Nonetheless, when addressing gross land use changes on the scale of thousands of acres, an estimated accounting of rice land and other wetland acreage through time is a reasonable measure of the anticipated long-term effects of urban development in the Basin and the effectiveness of the NBHCP's proposed mitigation program. Table VII-14 presents projected data on the status of land use over time in the Natomas Basin, and Table VII-15 presents projected data on the area of rice lands and wetlands anticipated in the Basin as a result of the NBHCP's mitigation program. As can be seen from these tables, the OCP anticipates preserving or creating 4,375.5 acres of rice land habitat managed to support wetland species such as the giant garter snake, and creation of an additional 2,263.5 acres of managed marsh habitat. Table VII-15 shows that the overall projected loss of wet habitat (rice and marsh lands) as a result of the adoption of the HCP would be a 3% decline in wet areas in the Natomas Basin overall. Of this, the majority of decline is attributable to conversion of rice to urban uses. While rice shows an overall net loss in the future, marsh land is projected to substantially increase over current levels from 96 acres (present condition in the Basin) to 2,263 (or a 24 fold increase) acres after implementation of the HCP and associated mitigation program.

Under the provisions of the NBHCP, habitat land acquisition would transfer some rice land into the reserve system. Rice lands acquired by TNBC for Mitigation Lands are expected to remain in rice cultivation or to be converted to managed marsh lands. Either of these habitats would support continuation of the giant garter snake. TNBC managed rice and managed marsh habitat will also include upland edges to support cover and hibernation sites for the giant garter snake during winter months Similarly, the flexibility of the NBHCP to allow in-Basin and out-of-Basin mitigation purchases is expected to have a minor impact on the total amount of rice farmed in the Basin. If the TNBC buys land outside the Basin, then land in the Basin will likely remain in private hands and in rice production and other types of farming. The principal loss would then be from urbanization. Assuming development of 17,500 acres, the total extent of wetland--rice and marsh–however, there would be a substantial gain in marsh habitat. The permanent protection of NBC reserve lands and the substantial increase in the extent of marsh are thus anticipated to result in a benefit to the long-term stability of giant garter snake populations in the Natomas Basin.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-70 April 2003
TABLE VII-15

STATUS OF WETLAND OVER TIME (IN ACRES)
Wetland Type Baseline
Acreage
Acres Impacted
by Planned
Development
Lands to be
Preserved or
Created by
TNBC
Lands Not
Included as
Planned
Development
under this HCP
Remaining
Lands (TNBC
Mitigation
Lands plus
lands not
impacted by
Planned
Development)
Rice Lands 22,693.0 (8,087.0) 4,375.0 14,606.0 14,606.0 to 18,981.0
Marsh, ponds
and wet areas

96.0 (21.0) 2,187.5 75.0 2,262.5
Canals 1,778.0 (404.0) N/A 1,374.0 1,374.0
TOTAL 24,854.0 (8,512.0) 6,562.5 16,055.0 18,242.0 to
22,617.5
Note: TNBC may acquire rice fields. It is assumed that these rice fields would be fields located outside of the area of Planned Development. Therefore, the lower range for remaining lands does not credit TNBC with providing a net increase in rice lands. On the other hand, if TNBC acquires land suitable for rice and enters that land into active rice cultivation as part of the reserve system, a net increase in remaining rice lands may result. It is also possible that some existing rice lands would be acquired and converted to managed marsh, resulting in a reduction in rice lands remaining, but an increase in marsh lands which may be more valuable to the wetland Covered Species.

TABLE VII-16

PROPORTION OF WETLAND BY TYPE OVER TIME (IN ACRES)

RICE LANDS MARSH LANDS WET AREAS

OVERALL
Plan
Year
Mitigatio
n Lands
Other
In
Basin
TOTAL % of
Basin
Mitigatio
n Lands
Other
In
Basin
TOTAL % of
Basin
Basin
Wetland
s (Rice
plus
Marsh)
% of
Basin
Present 0.0 22,693.
0 22,693.0 42.9% 0.0 96.0 97.0 0.2% 22,790.0 42.6%
Project
Com-
pletion
4,375.0 14,606.
0 18,981.0 35.5% 2,187.5 75.0 2,262.5 4.2% 21,243.5 39.7% Plan Year: 1997
Basin: Defined as the Natomas Basin Plan Area comprised of 53,537 acres.

Mitigation Lands: Lands to b preserved at a 0.5 to 1 Mitigation Ratio of which 50% of lands are planned to be rice and 25% of lands are planned to be managed marsh habitat and the balance of 25% planned for upland reserves.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-71 April 2003
G. SPECIES RECOVERY
The appropriate role of the NBHCP in giant garter snake and Swainson's hawk recovery is not known at this time because the USFWS has not yet completed a final Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan and the CDFG has not developed a Swainson's Hawk Recovery Plan. However, the NBHCP incorporates a recovery plan adaptation provision (see Section VI.H) that allows for modifications to the NBHCP in light of future recovery plans when and if such plans are approved.

Ultimately, recovery of the giant garter snake depends on conservation of garter snake populations throughout the Central Valley, including the Natomas Basin. The NBHCP provides a system of reserves and establishes an entity (The Natomas Basin Conservancy) to administer the program in perpetuity. By providing mitigation for the impacts of urban development on giant garter snakes in the Permit Areas and providing them with a protected reserve system in the Plan Area, and through the recovery plan adaptation described above, the NBHCP effort will contribute to statewide giant garter snake recovery efforts.

The NBHCP also allows, if certain conditions are met for some Mitigation Lands to be purchased out-of-Basin (see Section IV.B). The purpose of this provision is potentially to reduce the cost of the Plan by allowing acquisition of lower-cost land and to reduce the impact of land acquisition on farming in the Basin.

H. IMPACTS OF RESERVE MANAGEMENT
Habitat restoration and management activities in the NBHCP reserve system at times will require significant amounts of earth moving and surface disturbance (e.g., to create managed marsh wetlands).

These activities may result in some levels of take of the Covered Species, especially the giant garter snake.

Additional ongoing reserve management activities may also result in take (e.g., through ditch and drain maintenance, road kills, etc.), and take for scientific purposes (e.g., during monitoring) will periodically occur. However, take levels as a result of these activities are expected to be minor to negligible because:
(1) TNBC will implement all take avoidance measures as described in Section V.B; and (2) the benefits of these activities in creating and maintaining the Mitigation Land system is expected to more than offset any such minor take levels.

1. Authorizing Management Take/Take for Scientific Purposes As explained above, certain operations associated with reserve establishment and management (e.g., construction of managed marshes) could result in incidental take of giant garter snakes and other Covered Species. Other activities undertaken during reserve management (e.g., trapping of giant garter snakes for population monitoring purposes or for relocation to other habitats) could result in intentional (as opposed to "incidental") take. The take would be for scientific purposes or for the propagation and enhancement of survival and must be authorized by a permit under Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the federal ESA.

Both these types of take are authorized under the NBHCP subject to the conditions described below.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-72 April 2003
For purposes of management activities, the federal Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit and state Section 2081 permit issued to TNBC pursuant to the NBHCP shall authorize all take of Covered Species resulting from mitigation activities and management and operation of the NBHCP's reserve system, provided that:
(1) such take results from mitigation measures (e.g., capture/relocation) specifically intended to minimize more serious forms of take (e.g., killing/injury) or that are part of a monitoring program specifically described in the NBHCP; (2) such activities are directly associated in time or place with activities authorized under the permits; (3) such take occurs during activities conducted by the agents or employees of the USFWS, CDFG, TNBC, or any person acting under the direct guidance or authority of these entities; and/or (4) such take occurs during activities specifically described in a reserve management or monitoring plan approved by the USFWS and CDFG. These provisions are consistent with USFWS policy as described in the USFWS "Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook" (USFWS 1996). In addition, the state and federal permits issued to TNBC shall authorize all management related take that occurs on duly established NBHCP Mitigation Lands, irrespective of the location of those lands (i.e., management take occurring on out-of-Basin reserve sites is covered).

With respect to activities requiring take for scientific purposes (e.g., trapping, handling, and marking of Covered Species), the federal permit issued pursuant to the NBHCP shall be considered a joint Section 10(a)(1)(B)/10(a)(1)(A) permit. However, the permit shall only authorize take during those activities provided that: (1) the activities are directly associated with monitoring or similar requirements under the NBHCP; (2) the person(s) undertaking or retained to undertake the activities submits a resume to the USFWS describing their relevant qualifications; (3) the USFWS authorizes the person(s) to undertake the activities via a written letter or memorandum; and (4) the person(s) implements such additional terms and conditions as may be described in the USFWS' letter of authorization.

I. MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE

1. Summary of Findings Under ESA and CESA
To issue a Section 10(a) permit, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must have sufficient evidence to find that take has been avoided, minimized, and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. To make this finding, USFWS must examine a variety of facets - biological, physical, legal, and economic. To issue a Section 2081 Permit, CDFG must have sufficient evidence demonstrating the applicants will minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the take authorized under the 2081 permits. The Conservancy and the Land Use Permittees have proposed minimization measures and mitigation in the NBHCP to adequately address all of the impacts resulting from the proposed take under ESA and CESA.

To address the findings required under ESA and CESA, it is necessary to review all aspects - biological, physical, legal, and economic. As evidence to support the findings, the Land Use Permittees and The Conservancy submit Appendix H, the Biological Resources Tech Memo to identify take of the Covered Species; Appendix A, the Economic Analysis for the economic discussion of maximum extent practicable; as well as the conservation strategies and measures to reduce take identified in the NBHCP.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-73 April 2003
The Conservancy and the other Permittees evaluated the extent of take on Covered Species and proposed mitigation and minimization measures in the NBHCP to offset fully the impacts of such take as described in detail earlier in Chapter VII. The NBHCP conservation strategies and mitigation program provide for the collection of Mitigation Fees to purchase 0.5 acres of Mitigation Land for each acre of land developed, resulting in approximately 8,750 acres of Mitigation Lands as replacement habitat for Covered Species. Habitat on Mitigation Lands will be preserved, established, enhanced and actively managed to maximize the values of the Mitigation Lands to the Covered Species. Under the NBHCP, take would be avoided, minimized, mitigated and monitored through the following measures:

1. Identification and implementation of incidental take conservation measures to minimize impacts to NBHCP Covered Species as set forth in Chapters V and VI.

2. Establishment, enhancement and active management of up to 8,750 acres of high quality reserve habitat in perpetuity that is managed specifically for the benefit of NBHCP Covered Species. Of this Mitigation Land, approximately 6,562.5 acres would be managed marsh and rice fields which would provide direct benefits to giant garter snake and other wetland dependent species. Approximately 2,187.5 acres would be in upland reserves for the benefit of Swainson’s hawk and other upland dependent species. The NBHCP also provides additional habitat for hawk foraging along upland edges of wetland reserves.

3. Establishment of a monitoring and reporting plan to gauge the anticipated biological success and effectiveness of the NBHCP and to provide information for the Adaptive Management Plan which is designed to improve the biological success of the NBHCP as new information becomes available or conditions change.

4. Implementation of a funding program which contains assurances that the NBHCP will be implemented.

From a biological standpoint, the Mitigation Ratio of 0.5 to 1 is appropriate given the paucity of extant natural, undisturbed habitat for the Covered Species found within the Plan Area when compared to the enhanced value of the reserve lands that will result from habitat restoration, creation and management.

Limited natural habitat remains within the Plan Area. Some of the habitat within the Permit Areas subject to urban development is of high quality and some is of very low or limited value. Agricultural lands, and agricultural drainage canals and ditches provide artificial habitat within the Plan Area. All land converted to Authorized Development within the Permit Areas are subject to the NBHCP and required to pay the Mitigation Fees or contribute Mitigation Lands, including those portions of the Mitigation Fee related to future management and monitoring, whether the land lost to urban development is of high, low, or limited value to the Covered Species. In addition, the system of habitat reserves established and actively managed by The Conservancy in implementing the NBHCP will provide higher quality habitat for the Covered Species than currently exists. For example, as described in Chapter VII, the managed marsh, with its islands and lagoons, provides significantly more beneficial “edge” habitat for the snake than a typical rice NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-74 April 2003
field. The enhanced value of the Mitigation Lands thus, will establish improved habitat for the benefit of the Covered Species and their range.

Also, the system of habitat reserves, both in size and distribution, is beneficial to the biological diversity of species and is designed to specifically benefit the Covered Species. Because of the varied quality of habitat throughout the Permit Areas and the required enhancement of habitat by The Conservancy, the NBHCP proposes a Mitigation Ratio of one half acre of habitat land in the Plan Area for one acre of development within the Permit Areas. Nonetheless, for giant garter snake, one of the primary Covered Species under the NBHCP, habitat values will result in an effective mitigation ratio much higher than the 0.5 to 1 mitigation ratio because the quality of both marsh and rice habitat in the reserve system would be greater than the quality of the habitat lost to development and because the enhanced reserves will be designed, managed and monitored to support viable populations of such species. Similarly, under the NBHCP, the loss of Swainson’s hawk nesting habitat would be mitigated by active management of reserve lands to increase the number of available nest trees and the quality of foraging habitat, thus meeting the CDFG mitigation requirements for this species. Take of the remaining Covered Species also would be mitigated by the acquisition and active management of Mitigation Lands under the NBHCP.

The NBHCP also requires the following conservation measures to avoid and minimize take of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk, and the other NBHCP Covered Species. These measures must be implemented before disturbance of the land (i.e., grading) can occur: 1) a pre-construction biological survey by a qualified biologist must be completed for each development site, 2) grading can only occur during the active season of the giant garter snake (May through September each year), 3) grading can only take place within certain distance of Swainson’s hawk nesting trees (i.e., ½ mile) during nesting until after the young have fledged (March 15 to September 15 each year), and 4) ditches and canals must be dewatered for at least 15 days before they are filled and notice of dewatering provided to the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in order that they might take steps to re-locate any giant garter snakes or other Covered Species found during the dewatering process. The Permittees will require these measures also to minimize impacts on other Covered Species.

Based upon the analysis to identify take of the Covered Species contained in Chapters V and VII of the NBHCP, and in the Biological Resources Technical Memo, and for the reasons stated above, the Permittees believe the mitigation and conservation strategies provided in the NBHCP would mitigate fully the effects of incidental take.

The Permittees also have considered the physical constraints of providing mitigation to the maximum extent practicable and to achieve mitigation that minimizes and fully mitigates take of Covered Species.

Within the Natomas Basin, a limited number of acres would be available for acquisition by TNBC under the willing seller / willing buyer process. Consequently, the NBHCP provides a “release valve” by allowing the TNBC to acquire reserve land located outside the Basin under specified circumstances, and up to a maximum of 20 percent of the total required mitigation land.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-75 April 2003
In determining whether the mitigation proposed by the Permittees is the maximum extent practicable and minimizes and fully mitigates take, the Permittees also have considered legal requirements pertaining to the imposition of mitigation on Covered Activities. In this regard, the Permittees must comply with statutory and constitutional nexus requirements. Those legal constraints require that: (i) mitigation imposed on Authorized Development bear a rational relationship to the impacts of such development on existing habitat, and (ii) the mitigation be roughly proportional to the impacts caused by the Authorized Development (e.g., as measured by the amount of habitat lost and the amount of habitat required to be provided to offset this loss. As described in Chapters V, VI and VII and the accompanying technical reports, the Land Use Permittees have proposed a mitigation ratio and a corresponding Mitigation Fee which the applicants believe fairly compensates for the impacts of take caused by the Authorized Development, and at a level that is roughly proportional to the impacts caused by such development. In other words, for Authorized Development which would impact low quality or no habitat, a higher mitigation ratio requirement would result in those developers paying Mitigation Fees at a level which would exceed the impact caused by their projects. Thus, the mitigation ratio takes into account the varying quality of extant habitat impacted by Authorized Development and distributes the mitigation measures in an equitable manner by requiring developers to fund the mitigation measures designed to address the direct and indirect impacts of their development.

In determining the applicable mitigation for impacts resulting from Authorized Development, from an economic standpoint, the NBHCP proposes that a Mitigation Fee is required to be paid by the developer (both private and public) of each acre of Authorized Development whether or not the land has known or potential habitat for any of the Covered Species. Moreover, there is no maximum amount of Mitigation Fee (or fee cap) proposed in the NBHCP. TNBC is responsible for analyzing the fee and recommending to the Land Use Permittees the amount of the Mitigation Fee or necessary fee increases sufficient to implement the NBHCP. Each Land Use Agency will evaluate, consider and take action on any proposed increase in the Mitigation Fee. If a particular Land Use Agency does not take action to adopt an appropriate Mitigation Fee that will provide for the successful implementation of the NBHCP with respect to the impacts caused by Covered Activities within that Land Use Agency’s Permit Area, the Wildlife Agencies would consider the circumstances and, if necessary, revoke the Land Use Permittee’s Incidental Take Permit.

The Conservancy and the Permittees also evaluated the Mitigation Fee to determine its effect on the cost burden sustained by Authorized Development. The historic and current Mitigation Fee is reviewed and analyzed in the Economic Analysis prepared by Economic and Planning Systems, see Appendix A.

According to EPS, the cost burden that can be placed on urban development must generally not exceed a range of 15 to 20 percent if the development is to be feasible. With the current Mitigation Ratio 0.5 to 1 and the historic trend of the Mitigation Fee, the Economic Analysis demonstrates that the mitigation required by the NBHCP is economically feasible. In conjunction with the development fees and other infrastructure the cost burdens for urban development within the Basin already push the industry standard for feasibility. Nonetheless, although the NBHCP allows the Mitigation Fees to increase each year because there is no cap, the economic analysis indicates that the fees likely will increase in step with increases in land NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-76 April 2003
values such that the costs to developers and the Conservancy will not exceed the maximum cost burden of 20%.

Additionally, land acquisition prices for habitat have increased since 1997, when the HCP originally was adopted. As the land acquisition prices have increased, the Mitigation Fee accordingly has increased.

As the supply of land suitable for habitat mitigation in the Basin diminishes over time, the land acquisition price will increase because less land will be available for reserve lands. Consequently, the upward pressure on land acquisition prices would increase significantly if the NBHCP mitigation ratio increased to a ratio of 1 to 1 or higher, or if the NBHCP required the purchase of lands in specified reserve areas. Thus, a mitigation ratio above 0.5 to 1 would require the purchase of more reserve lands as mitigation. This would result in a higher price per acre for land, forcing the Mitigation Fee above the acceptable margin, and likely making the development infeasible.

The Land Use Permittees and The Conservancy also considered the effects on Authorized Development resulting from the Mitigation Fees in combination with other development fees to which developers would be subject. From an economic market perspective, if the Mitigation Fees were increased to an amount that is too high to justify urban development by a project proponent, urban development within the Natomas Basin will slow down and the corresponding impact on the Covered Species within the Natomas Basin will decrease or be delayed. Alternately, developers may choose to locate their development projects outside of the Natomas Basin and in other jurisdictions, which could result in additional impacts to species at locations outside of the Permit Areas. It must be noted that the purpose and objective of the Land Use Permittees is to secure Permits to allow Authorized Development to occur in the Basin under the NBHCP. Approving too high of a mitigation fee could make development infeasible, making it impossible to achieve the goals and objectives of the Land Use Permittees.

Based upon the analysis contained in Appendices A, H and I, and for the reasons stated above, The Conservancy and the other Permittees believe the mitigation, conservation strategies and minimization measures provided in the NBHCP would minimize and mitigate the impacts of the Covered Activities to the maximum extent practicable under the ESA and in accordance with CESA’s requirements to minimize and fully mitigate effects on Covered Species.

J. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED NBHCP

1. No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative, in which all take would be avoided and no federal or state permits would be obtained, for the Land Use Agencies or for the Water Agencies-was considered but rejected for the following reasons. The North Natomas Community Plan Area is an area that the City of Sacramento has designated as needed to provide an adequate housing mix for the City. Additionally, the Sutter County General Plan has for sometime contemplated and committed lands in south Sutter County for urban uses necessary to support the economic health of Sutter County. Due to the nearly ubiquitous presence of the NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-77 April 2003
giant garter snake in the rice fields and in the man-made water supply and drainage system, alternatives that avoid take are impractical. Finally, because of the pattern of widespread giant garter snake use in the Basin and the various impacts to wildlife that accompany urban development, urbanization of the Natomas Basin in the absence of the NBHCP would likely result in the cumulative, unmitigated destruction of giant garter snake habitat and ultimately extirpation of the species from the area.

2. Alternative Reserve Management
Alternative reserve management systems were evaluated that would not allow hunting and/or rice production on any reserve lands. The alternative was rejected as financially unacceptable. Even small ongoing revenues will be effective in helping fund the NBHCP and its conservation programs, and can help lower endowment costs for long-term reserve land management. Coupled with the cost of infrastructure, flood protection, schools, and the like, the burden of funding the NBHCP through development fees alone could, over the long-term, become a strain on landowners. To the extent that rice farming and hunting are compatible with the NBHCP's wetland reserve objectives and operation of the Sacramento International Airport, these revenue sources should be utilized to help distribute the costs of the program and to keep the mitigation fee as low as possible. The improved prospects for NBHCP funding of an adequate long- term revenue stream from these sources, so long as they are compatible with Plan objectives, are therefore important to the long-term success of the Plan's conservation program. Nevertheless, under the NBHCP's funding provisions (see Sections VI.B), the development fee must be raised as necessary to ensure adequate funding to maintain the Plan's mitigation obligations.

3. Alternate Proportions of Marsh and In-Basin Land
The proposed proportion of mitigation lands managed as seasonal or permanent marsh (as opposed to rice farming) or acquired in-Basin (as opposed to out-of-Basin) represents a balancing between biological and local interests. Retention of land in rice farming in the Natomas Basin and on NBHCP reserve lands, while having a biological basis (based on currently available data), also has economic, political and social considerations affecting the practicality of local implementation. The biological objective for the giant garter snake under the Plan is persistence of the Natomas Basin garter snake population and contribution to long-term recovery of the species in its historical range. However, limitations to local acceptability of the Plan have been conveyed during public review of early drafts of the NBHCP. Public acceptability means a reasonable mitigation fee, limited uncertainty, general compatibility with land use plans and existing agriculture, and minimal loss of tax revenue.

The key issues between biological and local objectives balanced by the NBHCP are: (1) the proportion of mitigation land that can be maintained in rice production; and (2) the proportion of mitigation land that can be established out-of-Basin. On the biological side, the current percentage of managed marsh (25%) and out-of-Basin land (20%) allowed by the Plan may not be biologically optimal. On the local interest side, acquisition of lands in-Basin and large amounts of conversion of rice lands to marsh has a high economic cost and exacerbates the impact of urbanization on loss of productive agricultural land. However, NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VII-78 April 2003
the NBHCP can adapt to meet changing biological circumstances through: (1) USFWS adoption of a Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan and CDFG adoption of a Swainson's Hawk Recovery Plan (see Sections VI.H.1 and VI.H.2, respectively); (2) the Plan's Adaptive Management provisions (see Section VI.F); (3) 9,000-acre Overall Program Review as described in Section VI.I; and (4) the Land Use Permittees’ Independent Mid-Point Reviews as described in Section VI.J. These provisions allow the NBHCP program to pursue alternatives of greater or lesser proportions of marsh and greater or lesser in-Basin land, and other measures if it is later demonstrated that this is biologically necessary. However, prior to acquisition of Mitigation Lands in Area B, the NBHCP TAC, including USFWS and CDFG representatives, must review and approve the acquisition. The NBHCP further stipulates conditions under which Mitigation Lands may be acquired in Area B (see Section IV.C.2.b of this NBHCP).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCES VIII-1
April 2003
VIII. REFERENCES
A. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahl, J. S. B. 1991. “Factors Affecting Contributions of the Tadpole Shrimp, Lepiduris packardi, to its Over-summering Egg Reserves.” Hydrobiologia 212: 137-143.

American Ornithologist Union. 1957. Check-List of North American Birds. 5th ed. Washington D.C.:

American Ornithologists’ Union.

Babcock, K. W. 1995. “Home Range and Habitat Use of Breeding Swainson’s Hawks in the Sacramento Valley of California.” J. Raptor Res. 29: 193-197.

Barr, C. B. 1991. The Distribution, Habitat, and Status of the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, California.

Beak Consultants. (Giberson, K. and B.L. Jackson). Giant Garter Snake 1992 Field Survey Report, Vol. III, Appendix C: Habitat Evaluation and Survey Location Maps. Prepared for Sutter Bay Associates and North Natomas Landowner Association, Inc. ________. (Martin, D. and D. Christophel). October 1992. Giant Garter Snake 1992 Field Survey Report. Prepared for Sutter Bay Associates and North Natomas Landowner Association, Inc.
________. Giant Garter Snake 1992 Field Survey Report Volume II, Appendices A and B.

Bechard, M. J. and J. K. Schmutz. 1995. “Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis).” In The Birds of North America, No. 172 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Bechard, M. .J. 1982. Effect of vegetative cover on foraging site selection by Swainson's hawks in Southeastern New Mexico. Condor 90:311-323.

Beedy, E. C., and A. Hayworth. 1991. Breeding Status, Distribution, and Habitat Association of the Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), 1850-1989. (JSA 88-187). Prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., Sacramento, California for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Sacramento, California.

Bent, A. C. 1950 “Life Histories of North American Wagtails, Shrikes, Vireos and Their Allies.” U.S.

National Museum Bulletin 197.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP –TAKE LEVELS/IMPACTS OF THE PLAN VIII-2 April 2003
Bent, A. C. 1948. “Life Histories of North American Nuthatches, Wrens, Thrashers, and Their Allies.” U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 195. 475 pages.

Bent, A. C. 1942. “Life Histories of North American Flycatchers, Larks, Swallows, and Their Allies.” U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 179. 555 pages.

Bent, A. C. 1938. “Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey.” Part 2. U.S. National Museum.

Bulletin 170.

Bent, A. C. 1929. “Life Histories of North American Shorebirds.” Part 2. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 146.

Biosystems Books, Santa Cruz, California. Life on the Edge: A Guide to California's Endangered Natural Resources, Wildlife. 1994.

Bloom, P. H. 1980. The Status of the Swainson’s Hawk in California, 1979. Wildlife Mgmt.

Branch, Nongame Wildl. Invest., Job II-8.0. California Dept. Fish and Game. Sacramento, California.

Bloom, Peter. November 1980. The Status of the Swainson's Hawk in California, 1979.

Bontadelli, Pete. July 2, 1990. Letter to Mr. Raymond Barsh. California Endangered Species Act Consultation for the American River Watershed Investigation, Preliminary Report on Impacts to State-listed Species in the Natomas Portion of the Project.

Borcalli & Associates. June 1992. North Natomas Landowners Association: North Natomas Comprehensive Drainage Plan Draft.

Broderick, L. Ryan, Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game, Letter to Messrs.

Combs, Smith, and Edgar, dated February 28, 1995.

Brode, John M. and George E. Hansen. January 1992. Status and Future Management of the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Within the Southern American Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California. California Department of Fish and Game Inland Fisheries Division Endangered Species Project.

Brown, N. L., December 1996. Endangered Species Recovery Program. California State University, Stanislaus Foundation Biological Sciences Web Server.

Http://arnica.csustan.edu/esrpp/swainson.htm.

CalFlora Database. [Online]. [Accessed 2001, August 10 and 29].

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCES VIII-3
April 2003
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2001. California Natural Diversity Database.

CDFG. 1995. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

CDFG. 1994a. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. Sacramento, California.

CDFG. 1994b. 1992 Annual Report on the Status of California State-listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants. Sacramento, California.

CDFG. 1992. 1991 Annual Report on the Status of California State-listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants. Sacramento, California.

CDFG. 1990. California's Wildlife, November
CDFG. December 22, 1988. Suggested Mitigation for Giant Garter Snake (GGS) Habitat Losses within North Natomas Community Plan Drainage Area.

CDFG. 1992. Conceptual Habitat Suitability Index Model for Swainson's Hawk.

CDFG. 1988. Five-year Status Report for Swainson's Hawk.

CDFG. 1993. Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Communities Conservation Plan:

Scientific Review Panel, Conservation Guidelines and Documentation. California Department of Fish and Game and the Resources Agency.

CDFG. January 24, 1994. Revised Draft Mitigation Guidelines for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas).

California Department of Conservation. The Williamson Act 1991-1993 Report.

California Native Plant Society. February 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Fifth Edition.

California Rice Industry Association. California Rice Statistics and related National and International Data. Statistical Report. Third Quarter 1994.

California Rice Promotion Board. 1990. California Rice Industry Economic White Paper.

California Rice Promotion Board. California Rice, Nature's Gift.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCESVIII-4
April 2003
CH2MHill. July 1,2002, Final Report, Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan: Impacts to Proposed Covered Species.

City of Sacramento Department of Planning and Development. North Natomas Community Plan .

May 13, 1986. Amended May 3, 1994. Adopted by City Council Resolution No. 86-348; amended by City Council Resolution No. 94-259.

City of Sacramento Department of Planning and Development. ________. March 1994. Final Supplement to the 1986 North Natomas Community Plan EIR .

City of Sacramento Department of Planning and Development. ________. March 1993. Draft Supplement to the 1986 North Natomas Community Plan EIR.

City of Sacramento Department of Public Works, Engineering Division. October 22, 1990. Draft - Environmental Impact Report: Natomas West Assessment District Improvements .

Contributors: Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., Omni-Means, Ltd., PAR Environmental Services, Inc., and Peak & Associates, Inc.. State Clearinghouse #89020200.

City of Sacramento. 1997a. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California. Published by City of Sacramento. November.

City of Sacramento, Planning and Development Department, Environmental Services Division. 1993.

Draft Supplement to the 1996 North Natomas Community Plan EIR . State Clearinghouse No. 93012011. Sacramento, California. March.

City of Sacramento, Department of Utilities. 1996b. Draft EIR for the North Natomas Comprehensive Drainage Plan, Levee Improvements, Canal Widening and Additional Pumping Capacity. State Clearinghouse No. 96042030. Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., Sacramento, California. December.

City of Sacramento, Department of Planning and Development. 1994a. North Natomas Community Plan. Sacramento, California. Adopted by City Council Resolution No. 94-259, May 3.

City of Sacramento and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2000. City of Sacramento Fish Screen Replacement Project – Environmental Assessment/Initial Study, Final Report. September.

Cleary, E. C., S. E. Wright, and R. A. Dolbeer. 1999. Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990-1998. Federal Aviation Administration Wildlife Aircraft Strike Database Serial Report Number 5. November.

County of Sacramento. December 15, 1993. County General Plan.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCES VIII-5
April 2003
County of Sacramento. Ordinance No: SZC 93-0045, Metro Air Park Special Planning Area Zoning Code.

County of Sutter. October 16, 1992. Exhibit A: Pleasant Grove Water District Boundary Description.

Cribbs, Hal -- Cribbs and Associates, October 1994. Background Information on the Natomas Basin, Managed Wetlands, and Hunting Programs
DeHaven, Richard L. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. June 2000. Breeding Tricolored Blackbirds in the Central Valley, California: A Quarter-Century Perspective Dodge, Donald M. May 27, 1993. Letter to Jerry Mensch. Approval of Giant Garter Snake Mitigation Plan for the City's San Juan Canal and Pump Station Drainage Project.

EIP Associates. February 13, 1992. SAFCA. Swainson's Hawk and Giant Garter Snake Draft Habitat Conservation Plan, Briefing Packet. Presentation to SAFCA Board of Directors. ________. February 1992. Executive Summary: Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency; Swainson's Hawk Giant Garter Snake Draft Habitat Conservation Plan . ________. February 1992. Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency/Draft: Swainson's Hawk and Giant Garter Snake Habitat Conservation Plan .

Eckert, A. W. 1981. The Wading Birds of North America (North of Mexico). Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc.

Economic & Planning Systems, Economic Analysis of Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, Draft Report, November 23, 1994, Final Report, March 8, 1994. Revised Report, August 11, 1995.

Economic & Planning Systems, Economic Analysis of Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, Final Report, March 12, 2002, EPS # 10365.

Economic & Planning Systems, Fee Reports -: NBHCP Fee Update -- 2002; EPS #12461, April 25, 2002
Eng, L. L., D. Belk, and C. H. Eriksen. 1990. “California Anostraca: Distribution, Habitat and Status.” Journal of Crustacean Biology 10 (2): 247-277.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCESVIII-6
April 2003
Estep, J. A. 1984. Diurnal Raptor Eyrie Monitoring Program. (Project W-65-R-1, Job No. 11-2.0).

California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigations. Sacramento, California.

Estep, James A. 1989. Biology, Movements, and Habitat Relationships of the Swainson's Hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-87. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report.

Estep, James A. Nesting Swainson’s Hawks in the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area 2000 Annual Survey Results. Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee.

September 2000.

Estep, James A. Nesting Swainson’s Hawks in the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area 2000 Annual Survey Results. Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2001.

Federal Aviation Administration. 1997. Subject: hazardous wildlife attractants on or near airports.

Advisory Circular dated May 1, 1997. 10 pp. plus appendix.

Fredrickson, L. H. and B. D. Dugger. Management of Wetlands at High Altitudes in the Southwest. The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri. October 1993.

Fitch, H. S. 1940. “A Biogeographical Study of the Ordinoides Artenkreis of Garter Snakes (genus Thamnophis).” University of California Publications in Zoology, 44 (1): 1-50 + plates.

Fugro-McClelland (West), Inc. May 1993. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Revised Natomas Area Flood Control Improvement Project . Project No. 9351-8507. Prepared for Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.
________. March 1993. Volume I Final Environmental Impact Report for The Metropolitan Airport/Vicinity Special Planning Area General Plan Amendment and Rezone. No. 89- GPB-ZOB-0781. (Vol. I: Final EIR; Vol. II: Appendices). State Clearinghouse No. 92032074. Prepared for the County of Sacramento Department of Environmental Review and Assessment.
________. March 1993. Volume II Final Environmental Impact Report for The Metropolitan Airport/Vicinity Special Planning Area General Plan Amendment and Rezone No. 89- GPB-ZOB-0781. (Vol. I: Final EIR; Vol. II: Appendices). State Clearinghouse No. 92032074. Prepared for the County of Sacramento Department of Environmental Review and Assessment.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCES VIII-7
April 2003
Gaines, D. 1974. “The Birds of Yolo.” California Syllabus. Oakland.

Garrett, K., and J. Dunn. 1981. “Birds of Southern California.” Los Angeles Audubon Society.

Gibbs, J. P., F. A. Reid, and S. M. Melvin. 1992. “Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis).” In The Birds of North America, No. 17 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Grinnell, J., and Miller, A. H. 1944. “The Distribution of the Birds of California.“ Pacific Coast Avifauna No.

27. Hall, Thomas (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Damage Control). January 1996. Sacramento International Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. Sacramento County Department of Airports.

Hansen, G. E. 1993. Survey and Analysis of the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis couchii gigas), the Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata), the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytoni), and the Foothill Yellow-legged frog (Rana boylei) in the Bear Creek Unit of the Merced County Streams Project, California. (Contract Purchase Order No.

DACW05-92-P1766). Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Sacramento, California.

Hansen, R. W. 1980. Western Aquatic Garter Snakes in Central California: An Ecological and Evolutionary Perspective. MA Thesis. California State University, Fresno, California. 78 pages.

Hansen, George E. and John M. Brode. 1992a. Results of Relocating Canal Habitat of the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) During Widening of State Route 99/70 in Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California. Final Report for Caltrans Interagency Agreement 03E325 (FG7550) (FY 87/88-91/92).

Hansen, George E. and John M. Brode. 1992b. An Evaluation of the Time and Conditions Required for Newly Constructed Waterways to Become Suitable Habitat for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). Unpubl. Rep. dated May 1992. 33 pp. plus appendices.

Hansen, George E. 1988. Review of the status of giant garter snake and its supporting habitat during 1986-1987.

Hansen, George E. and John M. Brode. 1980. Status of the giant garter snake, Thamnophis gigas (Fitch). California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Endangered Species Program. Special Publication 80-5 dated September 1980.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCESVIII-8
April 2003
Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. “Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia).” In The Birds of North America, No. 61. Eds. A. Poole and F. Gill. Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Helm, B. P. 1998. “Biogeography of Eight Large Brachiopods Endemic to California.” In Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems, eds. C. W. Witham, E. T.

Bauder, D. Balk, W. R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff, Pp 124-139. Sacramento: California Native Plant Society.

Heitmeyer, M.E., California Waterfowl Association, Sacramento, CA. May 1989.

Agriculture/Wildlife Enhancement in California: The Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture.

Hickman, James. 1990. The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California. University of California Press.

Holland, D. C., and R. B. Bury. Status of the Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata) in 1991.

Prepared for presentation at the Western Section, Wildlife Society 1992 annual meeting in San Diego, California. February 5-8, 1992.

Holt, D. W. and S. M. Leasure. 1993. “Short-Eared Owl (Asio flammeus).” In The Birds of North America, No. 62 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

James, A. H. 1977. “Sandhill Cranes Breeding in Sierra Valley, California.” Western Birds 8: 159- 160.

Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, CA.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC
Kaufman, K. 1996. Lives of North American Birds. Haughton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. 675 pages.

Kelly, J. R., M. K. Laubhan, F. A. Reid, J. S. Wortham, and L. H. Fredrickson, in Waterfowl Management Handbook, Leaflet 13.4.8. Options for Water-level Control in Developed Wetlands. 1993.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCES VIII-9
April 2003
Kennedy, E. D. and D. W. White. 1997. “Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii).” In The Birds of North America, No. 315 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Leidy, G.R. October 1992. (Pacific Environmental Consultants). Ecology, Status and Management of the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). Prepared for Sutter Bay Associates and the North Natomas Landowners Association, Inc.

May and Associates. 2001. Biological Resource Mapping of the Natomas Basin. Prepared for City of Sacramento, NPDS Department. Sacramento, California. August.

McCaskie, G., P. De Benedictis, R. Erickson, and J. Morlan. 1979. Birds of Northern California, an Annotated Field List. 2nd ed. Golden Gate Audubon Society, Berkeley.

Metro Air Park Property Owners Association. 2000. Draft Habitat Conservation Plan for the Metro Air Park Project in the Natomas Basin, Sacramento County, California. Prepared by Metro Air Park Property Owners’ Association. Palo Alto, California. November.

Miller, M.R., Sharp, D.E., Gilmer, D.S. (California Department of Fish and Game), and Mulvaney, W.R. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). March 1989. Rice Available to Waterfowl in Harvested Fields in the Sacramento Valley, California. California Department of Fish and Game # 75(2):113-123, 1989
Moyle, P.B. and E.D. Wikramanayake. October 1989. Fish Species of Special Concern of California. Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Biology, University of California, Davis.

Final Report Submitted to the State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova. Contract No. 7337.

Natomas Basin Conservancy. 2000. Site-specific Management Plans for the Natomas Basin Conservancy’s Mitigation Lands, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California. Prepared by Wildlands, Inc., Citrus Heights, California for The Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, California. July.

New, Ilson. 1995. Set Wings, Inc., Letter to Harold C. Cribbs, dated January 11, 1995.

Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie, Jr., and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Press.

Pacific Environmental Consultants. 1992. Ecology, Status and Management of the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas).

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCESVIII-10
April 2003
________. March 11, 1994. Letter to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch (Attn: Tom Kavanaugh). Subject: "Endangered Species Act Consultation on the Revised Natomas Area Flood Control Improvement Project (PN 199200719) in Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California."
The Planning Center. July 31, 1991. South Sutter County General Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH. No. 90030904. Prepared for Sutter County Planning Department. Contact: Peter Bridges.

Remson, Jr., J. V. 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Wildlife Management Administration. Report No. 78-1.

Ryder, R. R. and D. E. Manry. 1994. “White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi).” In The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Sacramento County. 2000. Draft EIR for the General Plan Amendment for Long-term Planning in North Natomas or Other Appropriate Areas. State Clearinghouse No. 1999022071.

Prepared by County of Sacramento, Department of Environmental Review and Assessment.

Sacramento, California. November.

Sacramento County Airport System (SCAS). 2001. Response to Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIR/EIS) for the Natomas Schaaf & Wheeler, Consulting Civil Engineers. February 1994. Reconnaissance-Level Report: South Sutter County Flood Control Alternatives . Prepared for Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.

Schlorff, R. W., and P. H. Bloom. 1984. “Importance of Riparian Systems to Nesting Swainson’s Hawks in the Central Valley of California.” In California Riparian Systems - Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management . (R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix, eds.) Berkeley: University of California Press. 612-618.

Shuford, W. D., C. M. Hickey, R. J. Safran, and G. W. Page. 1996. “A Review of the Status of White-Faced Ibis in Winter in California.” Western Birds. 27: 169-196.

Skinner, Mark W., and Bruce M. Pavlic. 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. 5th ed. California Native Plant Society. [6th ed., electronic update.] NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCES VIII-11
April 2003
Smith, E. L., and K. C. Kruse. 1992. “The Relationship Between Land-use and the Distribution and Abundance of Loggerhead Shrikes in South-central Illinois.” Journal of Field Ornithology 63:420-427.

Smith, Richard, Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Memorandum to Regional Directors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and Assistant Director of Ecological Services, dated September 14, 1994
Smith, W. David, Rollins, Glenn L., and Shinn, Richard L. A Guide to Wetland Habitat Management in the Central Valley. A Cooperative Effort. California Department of Fish and Game and California Waterfowl Association.

Stebbins, R. C. 1972. California Amphibians and Reptiles. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Stone, R. D., W. B. Davilla, D. W. Taylor, G. L. Clifton, and J. C. Stebbins. 1988. Status Survey of the Grass Tribe Orcuttieae and Chamaesyce hooverii (Euphorbiacea) in the Central Valley of California. Biosystems Analysis, Inc. Tiburon, California. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Office. Sacramento, California.

Strong, M.A. March 1991. Prepared by the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Sacramento, California. Environmental Assessment/ Proposed, North Central Valley Wildlife Management Area: Tehama, Butte, Clenn, Colusa, Yuba, Sutter, Placer, Yolo, Solano, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin Counties, California, a component of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan's Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture.

Sutter County Community Services Department. October 2001. Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH. No. 2001032086. Contact: Tom Last.

Sutter County Community Services Department. August 1996. General Plan 2015 Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH. No. 96012026. Contact: Tom Last.

Sutter County Community Services Department. November 25, 1996. General Plan 2015 Policy Document.

Sutter County Community Services Department. October 2001. Draft South Sutter County Specific Plan. Volume I.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCESVIII-12
April 2003
Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SHTAC). 2001. Nesting Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area. 2001 Annual Survey Results. Prepared for the Natomas Basin Conservancy. Sacramento, California.

SHTAC. 2000. Nesting Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area. 2000 Annual Survey Results. Prepared for the Natomas Basin Conservancy. Sacramento, California.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, South Pacific Division. December 1991.

Feasibility Report Appendices: American River Watershed Investigation, California, Vol. 6 - Appendix S, Part I.
________. December 1991. Feasibility Report Appendices: American River Watershed Investigation, California, Vol. 7 - Appendix S, Part 2.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. February 1991. American River Watershed Investigation, a detailed report on Fish and Wildlife Resources.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Preliminary Draft Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing. Sept. 15, 1994.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Sacramento River Swainson's hawk nesting population study, 1990. Unpubl. Rep. dated June 1991. Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Field Office, Sacramento, California. 59 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Sacramento River Swainson's hawk nesting population study, 1991. Unpubl. Rep. dated February 1993. Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Field Office, Sacramento, California. 64 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994a. Final Rule on Determination of Endangered Status for the Conservancy Fairy Shrimp, Longhorn Fairy Shrimp, and the Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp; and Threatened Status for the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, Federal Register Volume 59, Number 180, Monday Sept. 19, 1994.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b. Sacramento River Swainson's hawk nesting population study, 1992. Unpubl. Rep. dated April 1994. Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Field Office, Sacramento, California. 70 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnopsis gigas). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. ix+ 192 pp.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCES VIII-13
April 2003
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan. Sacramento, California. July.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. Updated July 9.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997a. Environmental Assessment for the Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit Under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Sacramento, California. June.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997b. Programmatic Formal Consultation for U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permitted Projects with Relative Small Effects on the Giant Garter Snake within Butte, Colusa,Glenn, Fresno, Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter and Yolo Counties, California. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. November.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1996b. Programmatic Formal Endangered Species Act Consultation on Issuance of 404 Permits for Projects with Relatively Small Effects on Listed Vernal Pool Crustaceans Within the Jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field Office, California. Sacramento, California. February 28, 1996.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991b. Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. Recovery Plan for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. Endangered Species Program. Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996.

Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. November.

University of California Agricultural Issues Center. April 1994. Maintaining the Competitive Edge in California's Rice Industry (Revised).

University of California Cooperative Extension. 1992. Sample Costs to Produce Rice in Sutter, Yuba, Placer and Sacramento Counties.

University of California Cooperative Extension. Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources. Rice Irrigation Systems for Tailwater Management
USA Rice Council. Facts About USA Rice.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCESVIII-14
April 2003
Western Ecological Services Company, Inc. (WESCO). December 10, 1991. Environmental Attributes of Rice Cultivation in California. Prepared for California Rice Promotion Board.

CRPB 9001.

Western Ecological Services Company, Inc. (WESCO). May 1992. Special Status Wildlife Species Use of Rice Cultivation Lands in California's Central Valley. CRIA 9201.

The Wildlife Society, Chapter 14, Habitat Manipulation Practices (¥oakum, J., and Dasmann, W.P.). 1969. Pages: 215-221.

Wylie, Glenn D. U.S. Geological Survey. Investigations of Giant Garter Snakes in the Natomas Basin: 2000 Field Season. December 21, 2000.

Wylie, G. D. and M. L. Casazza. 2000. Investigations of Giant Garter Snakes in the Natomas Basin: 1998-1999. USGS, Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station. Dixon, California.

Wylie, G. D., M. Cassaza, and J. K. Daugherty. 1997. 1996 Progress Report for the Giant Garter Snake Study. Preliminary report, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, and K. E. Mayer, eds. 1988. California’s Wildlife. Vol. I.

Amphibians and Reptiles. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, K. E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990a. California’s Wildlife.

Volume III. Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, K. E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990b. California’s Wildlife.

Vol. II. Birds. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCES VIII-15
April 2003
B. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED

Congressman Vic Fazio
Congressman Robert Matsui
Colette Johnson-Schulke
Law Offices of Gregory D. Thatch
Greg Thatch
Michael Devereaux
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Cay Goude
Mike Horton
William Lehman
Steve Morey
Peter Sorenson
Tara Wood
Kelly Hornaday
Lori Rinek
Vicki Campbell
Wayne White
U.S. Department of the Interior
Lynn Cox
Regular Solicitor
National Biological Survey
Tim Graham
Glenn Wylie
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Tom Cavanaugh
California Department of Fish and Game
Dave Zezulak
John Brode
Edward Ohara
Terry Roscoe
Jeff Finn
NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCESVIII-16
April 2003
Jenny Marr
John Mattox
City of Sacramento
Terry Moore
Bill Carnazzo
Carol Shearly
Thomas Lee
Grace Hovey
Sacramento County Metropolitan Airport
Larry Kozub
Rob Leonard
John Febo
Sutter County
Larry Combs
Rich Hall
Jeff Pemstein
Paul Junker
Natomas Central Mutual Water Company
Peter Hughes
Reclamation District No. 1000
Jim Clifton
Metro Air Park
Bob Klagge
Gerry Kamilos
Cribbs and Associates
Hal Cribbs
Remy-Thomas
Tina Thomas
AKT Development
Eleni Tsakopoulos
Pacific-Teal Development
NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCES VIII-17
April 2003
Terry Teeple
Bennett Brothers Ranch
Frank Bennett
Montna Farms
Alfred Montna
California Rice Industry
Robert Herkert
Kati Buehler
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

Fredreric A. Reid, Ph.D.

National Audubon Society
Glen Olson
Set Wings, Ltd.

Ilson New
Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer
Patrick Mitchell
Wendy Anderson
Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee
Jim Estep
U.S. Geological Survey
Glenn D. Wylie
Jones and Stokes
Jim Estep
Morrison and Foerster
Alicia Guerra
Clark Morrison
Planning and Dynamics Group
Trish Davey
NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCESVIII-18
April 2003
C. REPORT PREPARERS

1. Document Revision and Preparation
Pacific Municipal Consultants
10411 Old Placerville Road, Suite 210
Sacramento, CA 95827
Tel: (916) 361-8384
Fax: (916) 361-1574
City of Sacramento
1231 I Street, Room 300
Sacramento, CA 95816
Tel. (916) 264-5381
Fax: (916) 264-0151
Planning Dynamics Group
2576 6th Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95818

2. Public Review and Agency Coordination
City of Sacramento
Sutter County

3. Technical Analysis
2001:

CH2MHill
Jim Estep
Glenn Wylie
1997:

Thomas Reid Associates
NATOMAS BASIN HCP – REFERENCES VIII-19
April 2003

4. Biological Consultant
May and Associates
Loran May
Brent Helm

5. Economic Analysis
Economic and Planning Systems
1750 Creekside Oaks Drive, Suite 290
Sacramento, CA 95833-3640
Tim Youmans
Georgette Lorenzen
Figures
/70/73/71/85/82/69/32/49
/82/69/71/73/79/78/65/76/32/76/79/67/65/84/73/79/78
/82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /53 /77/105/108/101/115
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/53/32/77/105/108/101/115
/226
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79
/83/79/76/65/78/79/32/67/79
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/34/33/56/48
/34/33/49/54 /48
/34/33/49/54
/34/33/53/48
/34/33/49/54
/34/33/57/57
/34/33/49/54/48
/34/33/49/49/51
/34/33/49/49/51
/34/33/49/54
/34/33/49/49/51
/34/33/52/53
/34/33/49/49/51
/34/33/57/57
/34/33/55/48
/34/33/54/53
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/66/97/115/105/110
/76/69/71/69/78/68
/77/97/112
/76/111/99/97/116/105/111/110
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/67/105/116/121/32/111/102
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/65/110/110/101/120/97/116/105/111/110/32/32/32/32/32/32/65/114/101/97 /89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/77/101/116/114/111
/65/105/114
/80/97/114/107
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/76/97/110/100/32/105/110/115/105/100/101/32/83/119/97/105/110/115/111/110/39/115 /72/97/119/107/32/90/111/110/101/32/110/111/116/32/97/32/112/97/114/116/32/111/102 /83/117/116/116/101/114/32/67/111/117/110/116/121/32/80/101/114/109/105/116/32/65/114/101/97 /79/102/102/115/105/116/101/32/99/97/110/97/108/32/105/109/112/114/111/118/101/109/101/110/116/115 /116/111/32/115/117/112/112/111/114/116/32/83/111/117/116/104/32/83/117/116/116/101/114 /67/111/117/110/116/121/32/83/112/101/99/105/102/105/99/32/80/108/97/110 /70/73/71/85/82/69/32/50
/76/65/78/68/32/85/83/69/32/65/71/69/78/67/89
/80/69/82/77/73/84/32/65/82/69/65/83
/82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /52/53/48/48 /57/48/48/48 /70/101/101/116
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/57/48/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /83/117/116/116/101/114/32/67/111/117/110/116/121/32/80/101/114/109/105/116/32/65/114/101/97 /83/117/116/116/101/114/32/67/111/117/110/116/121
/73/110/100/117/115/116/114/105/97/108/92/67/111/109/109/101/114/99/105/97/108/32/82/101/115/101/114/118/101 /83/111/117/116/104/32/83/117/116/116/101/114/32/67/111/117/110/116/121 /83/112/101/99/105/102/105/99/32/80/108/97/110/32/65/114/101/97 /67/105/116/121/32/111/102/32/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111 /46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/65/110/110/101/120/97/116/105/111/110/32/32/32/32/32/32/65/114/101/97 /67/105/116/121/32/111/102
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/100/117/115/116/114/105/97/108
/67/111/109/109/101/114/99/105/97/108
/82/101/115/101/114/118/101
/76/97/110/100/32/105/110/115/105/100/101/32/83/119/97/105/110/115/111/110/39/115 /72/97/119/107/32/90/111/110/101/32/110/111/116/32/97/32/112/97/114/116/32/111/102 /83/117/116/116/101/114/32/67/111/117/110/116/121/32/80/101/114/109/105/116/32/65/114/101/97 /78/111/114/116/104/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/67/97/110/97/108 /78/111/114/116/104/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/67/97/110/97/108 /87/101/115/116/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/67/97/110/97/108 /70/105/115/104/101/114/109/97/110/39/115/32/76/97/107/101 /69/97/115/116/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/67/97/110/97/108 /70/73/71/85/82/69/32/51
/87/65/84/69/82/32/68/69/76/73/86/69/82/89/32/65/78/68
/68/82/65/73/78/65/71/69/32/83/89/83/84/69/77
/82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /52/53/48/48 /57/48/48/48 /70/101/101/116
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/57/48/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/66/97/115/105/110/32/66/111/117/110/100/97/114/121 /87/97/116/101/114/32/68/101/108/105/118/101/114/121/32/83/121/115/116/101/109 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/87/97/116/101/114/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/83/121/115/116/101/109 /83/111/117/114/99/101/58/69/110/115/105/103/110/32/38/32/66/117/99/107/108/101/121 /67/111/110/115/117/108/116/105/110/103/32/69/110/103/105/110/101/101/114/115 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/70/73/71/85/82/69/32/52
/65/69/82/73/65/76/32/80/72/79/84/79/71/82/65/80/72
/82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /52/53/48/48 /57/48/48/48 /70/101/101/116
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/52/53/48/48/32/70/101/101/116

/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/50/48
/50/48
/49/53
/49/53
/50/53
/50/48
/50/48
/50/53
/49/53
/49/53
/51/48
/49/48
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/70/73/71/85/82/69/32/54
/67/85/82/82/69/78/84/32/84/79/80/79/71/82/65/80/72/89
/82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /52/53/48/48 /57/48/48/48 /70/101/101/116
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/57/48/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /83/111/117/114/99/101/58/32/32/85/110/105/116/101/100/32/83/116/97/116/101/115/32/71/101/111/108/111/103/105/99/97/108/32/83/117/114/118/101/121/32/45/32/68/105/103/105/116/97/108/32/69/108/101/118/97/116/105/111/110/32/77/111/100/101/108 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/70/73/71/85/82/69/32/55
/70/76/79/79/68/32/80/82/79/78/69/32/65/82/69/65/83
/82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /52/53/48/48 /57/48/48/48 /70/101/101/116
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/57/48/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /73/110/99/114/101/97/115/101/100/32/70/108/111/111/100/112/108/97/105/110/32/68/117/101 /84/111/32/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100/32/79/118/101/114/102/108/111/119 /49/48/48/32/89/101/97/114/32/70/108/111/111/100/112/108/97/105/110 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/78/79/84/69/58
/83/111/117/114/99/101/58/32/32/69/110/115/105/103/110/32/38/32/66/117/99/107/108/101/121 /84/72/69/32/70/76/79/79/68/80/76/65/73/78/32/76/73/77/73/84/83/32/83/72/79/87/78/32/65/82/69/32/65/80/80/82/79/88/73/77/65/84/69 /79/78/76/89/32/65/78/68/32/65/82/69/32/66/65/83/69/68/32/85/80/79/78/32/85/83/73/78/71/32/84/72/69/32/85/83/71/83 /81/85/65/68/82/65/78/71/76/69/32/77/65/80/32/67/79/78/84/79/85/82/83/32/70/79/82/32/84/72/69/32/79/86/69/82/66/65/78/75/32/65/82/69/65/83/46 /84/72/69/83/69/32/76/73/77/73/84/83/32/65/82/69/32/83/85/66/74/69/67/84/32/84/79/32/67/72/65/78/71/69/32/65/83/32/66/69/84/84/69/82 /84/79/80/79/71/82/65/80/72/73/67/32/77/65/80/80/73/78/71/32/66/69/67/79/77/69/83/32/65/86/65/73/76/65/66/76/69/46/32/32/82/69/67/76/65/77/65/84/73/79/78 /68/73/83/84/82/73/67/84/32/78/79/46/32/49/48/48/48/32/72/65/83/32/83/85/82/86/69/89/69/68/32/83/69/86/69/82/65/76/32/76/79/78/71/32/83/69/67/84/73/79/78/83/32/84/79 /67/79/78/70/73/82/77/32/84/72/69/32/76/65/82/71/69/82/32/70/76/79/79/68/80/76/65/73/78/32/87/73/68/84/72/83/46 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100/65/110/110/101/120/97/116/105/111/110 /65/114/101/97
/67/105/116/121/32/111/102
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/100/117/115/116/114/105/97/108
/67/111/109/109/101/114/99/105/97/108
/82/101/115/101/114/118/101
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89 /80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/34/33/57/57
/70/73/71/85/82/69/32/56
/67/85/82/82/69/78/84/32/78/65/84/73/86/69/32/72/65/66/73/84/65/84/83 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /49 /50 /77/105/108/101/115
/76/69/71/69/78/68
/71/114/97/115/115/108/97/110/100
/79/97/107/32/71/114/111/118/101/115
/80/111/110/100/115/32/97/110/100/32/83/101/97/115/111/110/97/108/108/121/32/87/101/116/32/65/114/101/97/115 /82/105/112/97/114/105/97/110
/84/114/101/101/32/71/114/111/118/101/115
/83/111/117/114/99/101/58/32/32/67/72/50/77/32/72/73/76/76/44/32/50/48/48/49 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89 /80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/34/33/57/57
/70/73/71/85/82/69/32/57
/49/57/57/51/32/72/65/66/73/84/65/84/32/84/89/80/69/83/32/77/65/80 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /49 /50 /77/105/108/101/115
/76/69/71/69/78/68
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/71/114/97/115/115/108/97/110/100/32/111/114/32/78/97/116/105/118/101/32/86/101/103/101/116/97/116/105/111/110 /79/116/104/101/114/32/70/97/114/109/105/110/103
/82/105/99/101
/82/105/99/101/32/70/97/108/108/111/119
/85/114/98/97/110
/86/97/99/97/110/116
/83/111/117/114/99/101/58/32/32/78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/66/97/115/105/110/32/72/67/80/44/32/49/57/57/55 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89 /80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/34/33/57/57
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/70/73/71/85/82/69/32/49/48
/49/57/57/55/32/72/65/66/73/84/65/84/32/84/89/80/69/83/32/77/65/80 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /49 /50 /77/105/108/101/115
/76/69/71/69/78/68
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/65/108/102/97/108/102/97
/67/97/110/97/108/115
/73/100/108/101
/71/114/97/115/115/108/97/110/100
/78/111/110/45/114/105/99/101/32/99/114/111/112/115
/79/97/107/32/103/114/111/118/101/115
/79/114/99/104/97/114/100
/79/116/104/101/114
/80/97/115/116/117/114/101
/80/111/110/100/115/32/97/110/100/32/83/101/97/115/111/110/97/108/108/121 /87/101/116/32/65/114/101/97/115
/82/105/99/101
/82/105/112/97/114/105/97/110
/82/111/97/100/115/32/97/110/100/32/72/105/103/104/119/97/121/115 /82/117/100/101/114/97/108
/82/117/114/97/108/32/114/101/115/105/100/101/110/116/105/97/108 /84/114/101/101/32/103/114/111/118/101/115
/85/114/98/97/110
/83/111/117/114/99/101/58/32/32/67/72/50/77/32/72/73/76/76/44/32/50/48/48/49 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89 /80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/34/33/57/57
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/70/73/71/85/82/69/32/49/49
/50/48/48/49/32/72/65/66/73/84/65/84/32/84/89/80/69/83/32/77/65/80 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /49 /50 /77/105/108/101/115
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/65/108/102/97/108/102/97
/67/97/110/97/108/115
/71/114/97/115/115/108/97/110/100
/73/100/108/101
/78/111/110/45/82/105/99/101/32/67/114/111/112/115
/79/97/107/32/71/114/111/118/101/115
/79/114/99/104/97/114/100
/79/116/104/101/114
/76/69/71/69/78/68
/80/97/115/116/117/114/101
/80/111/110/100/115/32/97/110/100/32/83/101/97/115/111/110/97/108/108/121 /87/101/116/32/65/114/101/97/115
/82/105/99/101
/82/105/112/97/114/105/97/110
/82/111/97/100/115/32/97/110/100/32/72/105/103/104/119/97/121/115 /82/117/100/101/114/97/108
/82/117/114/97/108/32/82/101/115/105/100/101/110/116/105/97/108 /84/114/101/101/32/71/114/111/118/101/115
/85/114/98/97/110
/83/111/117/114/99/101/58/32/32/67/72/50/77/32/72/73/76/76/44/32/50/48/48/49 /202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218 /202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218 /202/218
/202/218/202/218 /202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218 /202/218
/202/218
/202/218 /202/218 /202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218 /202/218
/202/218 /202/218
/202/218/202/218 /202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218 /202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218 /202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218 /202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218 /202/218/202/218
/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218/202/218
/202/218
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/70/73/71/85/82/69/32/49/50
/71/73/65/78/84/32/71/65/82/84/69/82/32/83/78/65/75/69/32/82/69/67/79/82/68/83 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /49 /50 /77/105/108/101/115
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/57/48/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /71/105/97/110/116/32/71/97/114/116/101/114/32/83/110/97/107/101/32/82/101/99/111/114/100/115/202/218 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/83/111/117/114/99/101/58/67/78/68/68/66/32/45/32/74/97/110/32/51/44/32/50/48/48/49 /85/83/71/83/32/45/32/50/48/48/48
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179/35/179/35/179/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179 /35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179/35/179
/35/179/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/35/179
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /34/33
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/78/66/45/50
/78/66/45/49
/78/66/45/50/52/78/66/45/49/55/78/66/45/50/49/78/66/45/49/57 /78/66/45/54
/78/66/45/55
/78/66/45/50/48
/78/66/45/56
/78/66/45/49/53
/78/66/45/51/54
/78/66/45/51/50
/78/66/45/49/54
/78/66/45/49/48
/78/66/45/50/56
/78/66/45/49/50
/78/66/45/49/51
/78/66/45/49/52
/78/66/45/50/55
/78/66/45/50/53
/78/66/45/54/50
/78/66/45/54/49
/78/66/45/50/50
/78/66/45/53/57/78/66/45/54/48
/78/66/45/53/56
/78/66/45/53/55
/78/66/45/52
/78/66/45/49/56
/78/66/45/53
/78/66/45/51
/78/66/45/53/54/78/66/45/53/53
/78/66/45/53/52
/78/66/45/53/51
/78/66/45/53/50
/78/66/45/52/54
/78/66/45/52/55
/78/66/45/52/57
/78/66/45/53/49
/78/66/45/52/56
/78/66/45/53/48
/78/66/45/52/53
/78/66/45/52/51
/78/66/45/52/52
/78/66/45/57
/78/66/45/52/48
/78/66/45/52/49
/78/66/45/52/50
/78/66/45/50/51
/78/66/45/51/57
/78/66/45/50/54
/78/66/45/51/55/78/66/45/51/56
/78/66/45/51/53/78/66/45/51/52
/78/66/45/51/51
/78/66/45/51/49
/78/66/45/50/57
/78/66/45/51/48
/78/66/45/49/49
/80/97/99/105/102/105/99/32/65/118/101/110/117/101
/84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100
/105/110/32/50/48/48/48
/83/119/97/105/110/115/111/110/39/115
/72/97/119/107/32/90/111/110/101
/84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100/32
/105/110/32/50/48/48/50
/84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100/32
/105/110/32/50/48/48/50
/84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100/32/73/110/32/50/48/48/50 /84/114/101/101/32/82/101/109/111/118/101/100
/105/110/32/49/57/57/56
/70/73/71/85/82/69/32/49/51
/65/67/84/73/86/69/32/83/87/65/73/78/83/79/78/39/83/32/72/65/87/75/32/78/69/83/84/83 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /49 /50 /77/105/108/101/115
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/49/48/44/48/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /83/119/97/105/110/115/111/110/39/115/32/72/97/119/107/32/82/101/99/111/114/100/115/35/179 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/83/111/117/114/99/101/58/67/78/68/68/66/32/45/32/74/97/110/32/51/44/32/50/48/48/49 /78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/66/97/115/105/110/32/67/111/110/115/101/114/118/46/32/45/32/50/48/48/49 /114/240
/37
/202/218
/36
/36
/36/37
/36
/37
/37/37/37
/202/218
/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218/202/218 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/70/73/71/85/82/69/32/49/52
/79/84/72/69/82/32/83/80/69/67/73/69/83/32/82/69/67/79/82/68/83 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /49 /50 /77/105/108/101/115
/66/85/82/82/79/87/73/78/71/32/79/87/76/37
/67/65/76/73/70/79/82/78/73/65/32/76/73/78/68/69/82/73/69/76/76/65/36 /84/82/73/67/79/76/79/82/69/68/32/66/76/65/67/75/66/73/82/68/202/218 /86/65/76/76/69/89/32/69/76/68/69/82/66/69/82/82/89
/76/79/78/71/72/79/82/78/32/66/69/69/84/76/69/209
/86/69/82/78/65/76/32/80/79/79/76/32/70/65/73/82/89/32/83/72/82/73/77/80/240 /86/69/82/78/65/76/32/80/79/79/76/32/84/65/68/80/79/76/69/32/83/72/82/73/77/80/114 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/83/111/117/114/99/101/58 /67/78/68/68/66/32/45/32/74/97/110/32/51/44/32/50/48/48/49 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/34/33/57/57
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/70/73/71/85/82/69/32/49/53
/82/73/67/69/32/67/85/76/84/73/86/65/84/73/79/78/32/45/32/49/57/57/55 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /52/53/48/48 /57/48/48/48 /70/101/101/116
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/57/48/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /82/105/99/101/32/67/117/108/116/105/118/97/116/105/111/110/32/45/32/49/57/57/55 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /73/110/100/117/115/116/114/105/97/108
/67/111/109/109/101/114/99/105/97/108
/82/101/115/101/114/118/101
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/107/104/111/114/110/32/66/108/118/100/46
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/32/74/117/97/110/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/97/109/105/110/111/32/65/118/101/110/117/101 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/69/108/32/67/101/110/116/114/111/32/82/111/97/100
/67/105/116/121/32/111/102
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89 /80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/77/101/116/114/111
/65/105/114
/80/97/114/107
/80/97/99/105/102/105/99/32/65/118/101/117/101
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/34/33/57/57
/70/73/71/85/82/69/32/49/54
/72/73/83/84/79/82/73/67/44/32/69/88/73/83/84/73/78/71/32/65/78/68 /80/82/79/74/69/67/84/69/68/32/85/82/66/65/78
/68/69/86/69/76/79/80/77/69/78/84/32/65/82/69/65/83
/82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /49 /50 /77/105/108/101/115
/76/69/71/69/78/68
/80/114/101/45/49/57/57/55/32/68/101/118/101/108/111/112/109/101/110/116 /70/117/116/117/114/101/32/68/101/118/101/108/111/112/109/101/110/116 /49/57/57/55/45/50/48/48/49/32/68/101/118/101/108/111/112/109/101/110/116 /83/111/117/114/99/101/58/32/32/67/105/116/121/32/111/102/32/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/44/32/50/48/48/48/32/82/101/112/111/114/116/32/111/102/32/85/114/98/97/110/32/68/101/118/101/108/111/112/109/101/110/116 /83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79/85/78/84/89
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/82/105/118/101/114
/78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/69/97/115/116/32/77/97/105/110/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/67/97/110/97/108/32/40/83/116/101/101/108/104/101/97/100/32/67/114/101/101/107/41 /67/114/111/115/115/32/67/97/110/97/108
/65/109/101/114/105/99/97/110/82/105/118/101/114
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/56/48
/34/33/57/57
/70/105/115/104/101/114/109/97/110/39/115/32/76/97/107/101 /69/97/115/116/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/67/97/110/97/108 /87/101/115/116/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/67/97/110/97/108 /78/111/114/116/104/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/67/97/110/97/108 /48 /52/53/48/48 /57/48/48/48 /70/101/101/116
/49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/57/48/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/66/97/115/105/110/32/66/111/117/110/100/97/114/121 /68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/67/97/110/97/108/115/32/77/111/115/116/32/76/105/107/101/108/121 /84/111/32/82/101/109/97/105/110/32/68/117/114/105/110/103/32/80/101/114/109/105/116/32/84/101/114/109 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/84/78/66/67/32/77/105/116/105/103/97/116/105/111/110/32/76/97/110/100/115 /83/111/117/114/99/101/58/69/110/115/105/103/110/32/38/32/66/117/99/107/108/101/121 /67/111/110/115/117/108/116/105/110/103/32/69/110/103/105/110/101/101/114/115 /78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/66/97/115/105/110/32/67/111/110/115/101/114/118/97/110/99/121 /87/97/116/101/114/32/68/114/97/105/110/97/103/101/32/83/121/115/116/101/109 /87/97/116/101/114/32/68/101/108/105/118/101/114/121/32/83/121/115/116/101/109 /82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /70/73/71/85/82/69/32/49/55
/67/79/78/78/69/67/84/73/79/78/83/32/66/69/84/87/69/69/78 /82/69/83/69/82/86/69/83
/67/111/117/110/116/121/32/79/119/110/101/100/32/65/105/114/112/111/114/116/32/66/117/102/102/101/114 FIGURE 18

COMPARISON OF A RICE FIELD

TO MANAGED MARSH

REVISED NATOMAS BASIN HCP
Figure 19.1
Figure 19.2
Figure 19.3
Figure 19.4
Figure 19.5
/226
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79
/80/76/65/67/69/82/32/67/79
/83/65/67/82/65/77/69/78/84/79/32/67/79
/89/79/76/79/32/67/79
/83/79/76/65/78/79/32/67/79
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/34/33/56/48
/34/33/49/54/48
/34/33/49/54
/34/33/53/48
/34/33/49/54
/34/33/57/57
/34/33/49/54/48
/34/33/49/49/51
/34/33/49/49/51
/34/33/49/54
/34/33/49/49/51
/34/33/52/53
/34/33/49/49/51
/34/33/57/57
/34/33/55/48
/34/33/54/53
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111
/73/110/116/101/114/110/97/116/105/111/110/97/108
/65/105/114/112/111/114/116
/79/117/116/45/111/102/45/66/97/115/105/110
/77/105/116/105/103/97/116/105/111/110/32/65/114/101/97 /46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/46/45/44
/56/48
/46/45/44
/53
/70/73/71/85/82/69/32/50/48
/79/85/84/45/79/70/45/66/65/83/73/78
/77/73/84/73/71/65/84/73/79/78/32/65/82/69/65
/82/69/86/73/83/69/68/32/78/65/84/79/77/65/83/32/66/65/83/73/78/32/72/67/80 /48 /50 /52 /77/105/108/101/115

IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE

NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1 Recitals and Purposes ................................ ................................ ................................ .........1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1.7 Urban Development Permit Cond itions.................................................................................4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.12 The Natomas Basin Conserv ancy...........................................................................................................7

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

3.2.2 Acceptance of Mitigation Fees .................................................................................................6

3.2.3 TNBC Land Management; Site Specific Management Plan/NBHCP Biological Monitoring Plans/Surveys ..........................................................................................................6

3.2.4 Implementation Annual Report .................................................................................................6

3.2.5 Implementation Annual Meeting ..............................................................................................6

3.2.6 Funding.............................................................................................................................................6

3.2.7 Budgeting and Planning .............................................................................................................6

3.2.8 Successor ........................................................................................................................................6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3.2 Technical Assistance ...................................................................................................................8

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

3.3.4 Issuance of Section 10(a) Permits ..........................................................................................9

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

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

3.4.1 Oversight..........................................................................................................................................9

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

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

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

3.4.5 Issuance of Section 2081(b) Permit .....................................................................................10

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

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

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

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

4.4 Mitigation Ratio ............................................................................................................................................11

4.5 Calculation of Mitigation Requirement for A uthorized Development Projects .......................11

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

4.7 Jurisdictional Wetlands .............................................................................................................................12

4.8 Rivers, Streams or Lakes .........................................................................................................................12

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

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

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

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

4.9.4 Fee Adjustments for Genera l Inflation .................................................................................14

4.9.5 Failure to Adjust Mitigation Fees ...........................................................................................14 5 Mitigation Lands ..........................................................................................................................................................14

5.1 Location of Mitigation Lands ...................................................................................................................14

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

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

5.4 Coordinating Mitigation Land Acquisition with Agency Acquisitions .........................................15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.8 Conservation Measures ............................................................................................................................17 6 Assurances ...........................................................................................................................................................17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.4 Reservation of Rights Re: S ubsequent Listing of Species ...........................................................21

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

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

iii

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

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

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

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

7.5 Third Party Enforc ement...........................................................................................................................22

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

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

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

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

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

7.6.5 Severability....................................................................................................................................23 8 Miscellaneous 27

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.2.5 Status of Mitigation Lands Upon Te rmination...................................................................24

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

8.4 Notices 28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.14 References to Regulations ......................................................................................................................26

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

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

8.17 Elected Officials Not to Benefit ...............................................................................................................26

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit A - Definitions
Exhibit B - CITY’s Baseline Map
Exhibit C - SUTTER’s Baseline Map
Exhibit D - List of Covered Species in Permit Area

1 IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE

NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

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

1. RECITALS AND PURPOSES

The Parties have entered into this Agreement in consideration of the following facts and assumptions, intentions and expectations:

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

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

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

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

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

Consequently, Planned Development of 17,500 acres, including CITY and SUTTER Authorized Development and Metro Air Park’s 1,983 acres of authorized development, related infrastructure, and government public works planned in this area over the next fifty (50) years may result in a loss of habitat and takings of the Covered Species, incidental to the normal course of this Planned

2 Development.

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

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

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

1.8 Local Land Use Authority . The parties to this Agreement intend that nothin g in the NBHCP or in this Agreement shall be interpreted to mean or operate in a manner that expressly or impliedly diminishes or restricts the local land use decision making authority of CITY or SUTTER, provided that the Parties acknowledge that should ei ther CITY or SUTTER exercises its respective land use authority in a manner that conflicts with the terms of the NBHCP, this Agreement or the Permits, the Service and/or CDFG may suspend or revoke CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits pursuant to Section 7.4 of this Agreement and applicable laws and regulations.

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

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

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

3 AGREEMENT
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the recitals set forth above, which are incorporated by reference here in, the covenants set forth herein, and other considerations, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:

2 DEFINITIONS
Terms used in this Agreement with reference to the ESA shall have the same meanin g as those same terms have under the ESA, or in regulations adopted by the USFWS, and terms used in this Agreement with reference to CESA, shall have the same meaning as those same terms have under CESA, or regulations adopted by CDFG. Capitalized terms u sed in this Agreement shall have the defined meanings specified in the NBHCP as attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein into this Agreement. Where additional terms are used in this Agreement, definitions are included within the applicable tex t. Any amendments to the definitions contained in this Agreement shall be deemed automatically to be amendments to the definitions contained in the NBHCP.

3 OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES

3.1 CITY and SUTTER .

3.1.1 Limitation on Total Development in Nat omas Basin and Individual Permit Areas. The NBHCP anticipates and analyzes a total of 17,500 acres of Planned Development in the Natomas Basin, 15,517 acres of which constitutes Authorized Development within CITY and SUTTER. (An additional 1,983 acres of development is allocated to the Metro Air Park project in Sacramento County under the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan and is analyzed within the NBHCP.) CITY agrees not to approve more than 8,050 acres of Authorized Development and to ensure that all Authorized Development is confined to CITY’s Permit Area as depicted on Exhibit B to this Agreement). SUTTER agrees not to approve more than 7,467 acres of Authorized Development and to ensure that all Authorized Development is confined to SUTTER’s P ermit Area as depicted on Exhibit C to this Agreement). The Parties further agree:

(a) Because the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating
Conservation Program is based upon CITY limiting total development to 8,050 acres within the CITY’s Permit Area, an d SUTTER limiting total development to 7,467 acres within SUTTER’s Permit Area, approval by either CITY or SUTTER of future urban development within the Plan Area or outside of their respective Permit Areas would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program. Thus, CITY and SUTTER further agree that in the event this future urban development should occur, prior to approval of any related rezoning or prezoning, such future urban development shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development, and/or possible suspens ion or revocation of CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits in the event the CITY or SUTTER violate such limitations.
(b) For purposes of the NBHCP and this Agreement, CITY agrees that although the West Lakeside Annexation area is proposed by the landowners to be ann exed to the CITY, this area currently is located within Sacramento County and is outside of the County’s Urban Services Boundary and the City’s Sphere of Influence, and it is not included in the 8,050 acres of Authorized Development or within the CITY’s Pe rmit Area. Thus, CITY agrees that in the event this annexation occurs, it shall, prior to approval of any rezoning or prezoning associated with such annexation, trigger a reevaluation of the Plan, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisi ons to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the City for that additional urban development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of CITY’s Permit in the event the CITY violates such limitatio ns without

4 completing such reevaluation, amendment, or revision or new conservation strategy for that additional urban development.

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

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

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

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

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

3.1.7 Urban Development Permit Conditions . CITY and SUTTER shall include in any Urban Development Permit the on -site Take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures

5 specified in Chap ter V of the NBHCP (the “Conservation Measures”) to reduce or eliminate, the direct and indirect impacts of Authorized Development on the Covered Species and shall include in such Urban Development Permit notice of the need to comply with the requirements of other agencies applicable to the project.

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

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

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

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

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

7.6.1 of this Agreement, or CDFG determine s pursuant to Section 7.6.2 that TNBC has violated the terms of the NBHCP, the Permits or this Agreement, such violation shall be considered a failure by CITY and SUTTER to implement their obligations of the Operating Conservation Program under the NBHCP. Provided, however, that if the violation by TNBC related to MAP mitigation acquisition or management requirements, or to other violations resulting from and solely pertaining to a violation of the MAP HCP, the provisions of this subsection shall not apply and neither City nor Sutter shall be considered to have failed to implement their obligations of the Operating Conservation Program under the NBHCP.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing in the event USFWS or CDFG make the determination set forth in Section 3 .1.11(a), CITY’s and SUTTER’s Permits shall not be revoked or suspended, if CITY and/or SUTTER implement corrective measures, within the period specified by the USFWS and/or CDFG, to remedy TNBC’s violation which may include, but shall not be limited to (1 ) replacing TNBC with another conservation entity qualified to serve as a Plan Operator, (2) transferring the Mitigation Lands to CDFG in accordance with Section 3.2.12 of this

6 Agreement, (3) implementation by TNBC of measures specified by the USFWS and/or CDFG as necessary to remediate the violation unless USFWS or CDFG determine that continuation of the Permits would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a Covered Species in the wild or USFWS or CDFG determine that the violatio n renders CITY or SUTTER unable to implement successfully the NBHCP; or (4) implementation by CITY and/or SUTTER of measures necessary to remediate the violation.
(c) Should the USFWS or CDFG determine that CITY or SUTTER has violated their separate obliga tions under the NBHCP, the Permits or this Agreement, such violation shall not be attributed to TNBC nor shall TNBC’s Permits be affected, so long as TNBC continues to properly implement its obligations under the NBHCP with respect to the Mitigation Lands, including its obligations as the Plan Operator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1.19 Implementation of other NBHCP Components
. CITY and SUTTER agree to
implement each of the other components of the NBHCP identified in the Plan or this Agreement, specifically including enactment of and period ic revisions to the Mitigation Fee ordinances and Catch Up Fee ordinances or through other funding mechanisms except for the CITY or SUTTER

7 general funds, as described in Chapter VI of the Plan as necessary to ensure the NBHCP is fully funded. The commit ments set forth herein shall be subject to the limitation that implementation of such measures is within the CITY’s or SUTTER’s land use or other legal authority.

3.2 The Natomas Basin Conservancy .

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.7 Budgeting and Planning . Prior to the end of each calendar year, the TNBC shall prepare a budget and a plan for its proposed activities for the forthcoming year and pr ovide copies to each Permittee, CDFG and USFWS.

3.2.8 Successor . With the prior written approval of CITY, SUTTER, USFWS and CDFG, the assets and obligations of TNBC may be transferred to any other non -profit corporation

8 provided that the successor corpor ation assumes each of the obligations of TNBC as set forth under the NBHCP the TNBC Permit, and this Agreement.

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

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

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

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

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

3.3 USFWS.

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

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

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

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

3.3.4 Issuance of Section 10(a) Permits .
(a) Following execution of this Agreement, the Service will issue a Section 10(a) Permit to each signatory Permittee authorizing the Take of each listed Covered animal Species incidental to the Covered Activities, subject to and in accordance with the NB HCP, this Agreement and the Permits.
(b) For Covered animal Species not listed as an endangered species or threatened species under ESA as of the Effective Date, the Section 10(a) Permits shall become effective as to each such species concurrent with the l isting of the species as a threatened species or endangered species under the ESA. The NBHCP also covers seven (7) plant species.

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

3.3.5 Permit Findings
. USFWS, based on the best scientific and commercial data available and the terms and provisions of this Agreement and the NBHCP, has found that with respect to the Covered Species:
(a) The Taking of Covered Species will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
(b) Implementation of the NBHCP by the Permittees will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of the Incidental Take of Covered Species.
(c) CITY and SUTTER will ensure that adequate funding for the NBHCP will be provided and the NBHCP and this Agreement provide procedures for addressing Changed Circumstances and Unforeseen Circumstances.
(d) The Take of Covered Species in accordance with this Agreement will not a ppreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the Covered Species in the wild.
(e) The measures agreed upon by the Permittees and the
USFWS for purposes of the NBHCP will be met.
(f) Through this Agreement, the USFWS has received the
required assurances that the NBHCP will be implemented.

3.4 CDFG.

3.4.1 Oversight . After issuance of the Section 2081 Permit to CITY and SUTTER, CDFG shall monitor the implementation of the Section 2081 Permit, this Agreement and TNBC’s activities thereunder , including but not limited to, the modification, enhancement, operation and maintenance of the Mitigation Lands in order to ensure compliance with this Agreement and

10 consistency with CDFG’s trustee agency duties pursuant to CESA, and recommend any amendments to the NBHCP CDFG deems desirable, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, under the Plan’s Adaptive Management provisions as described in Chapter IV, Section E of the NBHCP or the Overall Program Review as described in Chapter IV, Section I of t he NBHCP.

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

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

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

3.4.5 Issuance of Section 2081(b) Permit .
(a) Following execution of this Agreement, CDFG will issue a Section 2081(b) Permit or modif ication to an existing Permit to each Permittee authorizing the Take of each Covered Species incidental to Covered Activities, subject to and in accordance with the NBHCP and this Agreement.
(b) As to each Covered Species that is not currently listed und er CESA, the Incidental Take Authorization under the Section 2081(b) Permits shall become effective consistent with Section 6.2.4 of this Agreement.

3.4.6 Section 2081(b) Permit Findings .

CDFG, based on the best scientific and other information that is re asonably available, and the terms and provisions of this Agreement and the NBHCP, has found that with respect to the Covered Species:
(a) Incidental Take . The authorized Take of Covered Species will be incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.
(b) Minimize and Fully Mitigate . The impacts of the authorized Take will be minimized and fully mitigated.
(c) Roughly Proportional . The measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take will be roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the authorized Take of Covered Species.
(d) Applicant’s Objectives . The measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take will preserve Permittee objectives to the greatest extent possible, consistent with t he obligation to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take.
(e) Capable of Successful Implementation . All required measures will be capable of successful implementation.

11 (f) Adequate Funding . Permittees have ensured adequate funding to implement the required minimization and mitigation measures, and for monitoring compliance with, and effectiveness of, those measures.
(g) No Jeopardy . The issuance of the Section 2081(b) Permits will not jeopardize the continued existence of any Cover ed Species. (h) Unlisted Species . Covered Species that are not currently listed as threatened or endangered under CESA have been treated in the NBHCP as if they were listed, and the NBHCP identifies measures to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take of such unlisted species. The findings in this Section 3.4.5 apply to all Covered Species, including Covered Species that are not listed.

4 MITIGATION

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

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

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

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

4.5 Calculation of Mitigation Requirement for Authorized Development Projects . The Mitigation Requirement for each public or private project is determined by applying the Mitigation Ratio to the land area converted to Authorized Developmen t (the “Mitigation Requirement”). The land area converted to Authorized Development is determined as follows:
(1) For both private and public development projects, except as provided in (2) and (3) below, the gross area of a particular project is consider ed “land area converted to Authorized Development” whether the entire project is graded or not. The fees payable shall be calculated by multiplying the Mitigation Fees (in dollars per acre) times the land area converted to Authorized Development, prorated for fractional acres. (2) For private development projects, a separate parcel or portion of a parcel which will be transferred to a public agency for a public use consisting of a park, school or other public building, is exempt. The Mitigation Require ment for such uses must be satisfied when the parcel of public use property is developed by the respective public agency owning the parcel. With respect to other lands designated for public use, the following criteria will apply: (a) Roads: where a road is included within the respective Land Use Agency’s finance plan for purposes of financing, the land transferred or to be transferred by fee or easement to the agency for the road project is excluded; where a road is not one which is financed pursuant to the agency’s finance plan, but is to be paid for entirely by the private landowner or developer of the project, even though ultimately it will be dedicated to the agency, the land transferred or to be transferred to the agency for the road is included; (b) Ut ilities: where the landowner or developer is required to transfer to the respective Land Use Agency or another public entity (e.g., Sacramento Municipal Utility District), by easement

12 or fee, land for a structure such as a pump station, outfall station, or similar structure, such land is excluded; where the landowner or developer is required to transfer to the agency non -exclusive easements for utility lines (water lines, sewer lines, and similar lines), the land covered by such easements is included; if th e easement is exclusive, the land covered by the easement is excluded, but the transferee agency will be required to provide mitigation upon development of the transferred parcel. With respect to each parcel or portion of a parcel exempted or excluded purs uant to this section, the Mitigation Requirement shall be satisfied by CITY or SUTTER at the time such parcel or portion of land is converted to Authorized Development. (3) For both private and public projects, excluded is any parcel or portion of the parcel approved as Mitigation Land by TNBC and the Wildlife Agencies in accordance with the NBHCP and which will be transferred in fee to TNBC or will be encumbered by a Conservation Easement in favor of TNBC for purposes of satisfaction of the Mitigation Re quirement for the particular development project.

4.6 Satisfaction of Mitigation Requirement . A public or private project proponent may satisfy the Mitigation Requirement by: (1) payment of the Mitigation Fees; or (2) subject to the approvals required b y the NBHCP, transfer of Mitigation Land to TNBC, together with payment of all components of the Mitigation Fee except the Land Acquisition Fee as specified in the NBHCP.

Credit against the Land Acquisition Fee component of the Mitigation Fees is based o n the number of acres of land being transferred and is not based on cost or perceived value of the land transferred. Where the proponent elects to transfer land to TNBC, TNBC and the Wildlife Agencies must approve the transfer of each parcel of Mitigation Land considering its location, proximity to urban uses and roads, current land condition, and all other factors specified in the NBHCP. If the amount of land transferred to TNBC is less than the Mitigation Land required for the public or private project, the landowner is obligated to pay the outstanding balance of the Land Acquisition Fee component of the Mitigation Fees. If the amount of land transferred to TNBC is greater than the amount of Mitigation Land required for the development project, the lando wner may choose one of the following credit options: (i) receive credit from the excess amount of land toward required Mitigation Land under the NBHCP for future Authorized Development of property owned by the landowner; or (ii) transfer credit from the ex cess amount of land toward required Mitigation Land under the NBHCP for Authorized Development of property owned by another specified landowner.

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

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

4.8 Rivers, Streams or Lakes
. Nothing in this Agreement shall relieve any Urban
Development Permittee desiring to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the CDFG, or use any material from the streambeds, of any requirement to comply with Fish and Game Code, Division 2,

13 Chapter 6, commencing with Section 1600 (concerning Streambed Alteration A greements). This Agreement and implementation of the NBHCP are intended to satisfy only site -specific mitigation requirements for impacts of taking Covered Species as a result of an Authorized Development project which may be imposed under Chapter 6 of th e California Fish and Game Code, with the exception of mitigation specifically directed at those vernal pool species included on the list of Covered Species.

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

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

4.9.2 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee for Purposes of F unding the Operating Conservation Program Other than Changes to the Managed Marsh Component . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, upon request of TNBC or upon the written request of USFWS or CDFG as supported by documented evidence in th e form of a written report and technical analysis, and as otherwise necessary, CITY and SUTTER shall review, and at the discretion of each, adjust the Mitigation Fees to take into account costs of land acquisition and TNBC operations, to maintain or meet t he Mitigation Ratio specified in Section 4.4 of this Agreement, and to meet TNBC management, monitoring, adaptive management, or related costs required to fund the Operating Conservation Program as set forth in Chapters IV, V and VI of the NBHCP. The deci sion to adjust the Mitigation Fees may include but is not limited to consideration of the following factors: (1) the market price of land being acquired as Mitigation Land; (2) the necessity to maintain the 0.5 to 1 Mitigation Ratio; (3) the need to fund o ngoing and permanent management and monitoring costs in accordance with the NBHCP; (4) the necessity to ensure the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program; and (5) the availability of other sources of revenues, including the sale of hun ting rights on Mitigation Lands, proceeds from the cultivation of rice on Mitigation Lands and other funds and grants. (a) Notwithstanding the foregoing and in accordance with, and subject to the limitations of, Chapter VI of the NBHCP, CITY or SUTTER s hall be obligated to increase the Mitigation Fees to fund recommended changes to the Operating Conservation Program resulting from future recovery plans, monitoring results from the Plan Area or peer - reviewed new scientific information relevant to the Plan only when such recommendations:
(1) Relate to the physical management of Mitigation
Lands;
(2) Would improve the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s
Operating Conservation Program by identifying relevant new information, approaches, techniques, or species prote ction needs;
(3) Can be implemented within the NBHCP Plan Area; and
(4) Fit within the overall intent and framework, are
consistent with the NBHCP’s biological goals and objectives and would not exceed the established Mitigation Ratio of the NBHCP; and
(5) Would not substantially sacrifice habitat values for Covered Species that are not addressed by the recovery plan, the monitoring results or other peer - reviewed new scientific information.
(b) Adjustment of the Mitigation Fees pursuant to this subsection is independent of adjustments made on account of inflation/deflation pursuant to Section 4.9.4 of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to diminish or otherwise affect the

14 discretionary authority of the Land Use Agencies with respe ct to fee adjustments under this Section

4.9.1. 4.9.3 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee for purposes of Funding the Changes to the Managed Marsh Component . Upon written notification supported by documented evidence in the form of a written report and tec hnical analysis by USFWS or CDFG to CITY and SUTTER of the adoption of a future Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan, the availability of monitoring results from the Plan Area, or peer -reviewed new scientific information indicating an adjustment in the enhance ment and management activities for managed marsh as specified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP, the CITY and SUTTER shall review, and at the discretion of each, adjust the Mitigation Fees to take into account increased costs of TNBC’s enhancement and management of a higher proportion of managed marsh on Mitigation Lands acquired after adoption of the final Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan by the USFWS, if the availability of peer -reviewed new scientific information or monitoring results from the Plan Area indicat e an adjustment in the enhancement and/or management activities for managed marsh is warranted as specified and subject to the limitations contained in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. The obligation to adjust the Mitigation Fees shall be subject to the following limitations set forth in Chapter VI of the NBHCP:
(b) the obligation to increase the Mitigation Fees shall be applied prospectively to future Mitigation Lands acquired after adoption of the Recovery Plan, in response to monitoring results from the Plan A rea or in response to peer -reviewed new scientific information.

(c) if the Recovery Plan, monitoring results collected from the Plan Area, or peer -reviewed new scientific information indicate a higher proportion of managed marsh (1) will improve the effe ctiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program to meet its biological goals and objectives, (2) is beneficial to the snake, and (3) will not adversely affect any other listed Covered Species.
(d) the maximum levels of managed marsh which may apply to future Mitigation Land acquisitions which occur after the results of monitoring from the Plan Area or peer-reviewed new scientific information, or Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan adoption shall not exceed seventy -five percent (75%) of such Mitigation Lands.

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

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

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

5.1 Location of Mitigation Lands . TNBC shall locate Mitigation Lands in accordance

15 with Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP and this Section.

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

5.3 In-Basin Acquisition . A minimum of 80 percent of all Mitigation Lands shall be acquired within the Natomas Basin as provided in the NBHCP. Up to 20 percent of all Mitigation Lands may be acquired outside of the Natomas Basin in Area B if approved by TNBC and the Wildlife Agencies in accordance with the criteria provided in Chapter IV of the NBHCP.

5.4 Coordinating Mitigation Land Acquisition With Agency Acquisitions . Prior to the Acquisition of any parcel of Mitigation Land, TNBC shall provide written notice to the USFWS, CDFG, and both CITY and SUTTER of its intent to Acquire such lands. USFWS an d CDFG agree that they will not knowingly interfere or compete with TNBC for the Acquisition or control of such lands and that they will consult with TNBC in formulating any Acquisition plans. As to those lands identified by USFWS or CDFG for acquisition, TNBC, likewise, shall not knowingly interfere with or compete with the affected agency for acquisition or control until TNBC is notified by that agency that it is no longer pursuing acquisition or control of the lands. 16 5.5 Timing of Mitigation Land Acqui sition. TNBC shall comply with the requirements of the NBHCP relating to the Acquisition of Mitigation Lands in advance of approval of Authorized Development set forth in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. The Parties further agree that in order to ensure that Mit igation Lands are Acquired in an amount sufficient to meet the Mitigation Requirement that attaches to all Authorized Development under the NBHCP, TNBC shall establish a 200 acre cushion of Mitigation Lands prior to the approval of any Authorized Developme nt by CITY or SUTTER under the Plan and shall maintain the 200 Acre Mitigation Land cushion until the approval of the last 400 acres of Authorized Development under the Plan. CITY, SUTTER and TNBC shall implement this requirement in accordance with the NB HCP, as follows. (a) No Urban Development Permits for Authorized Development shall be issued by CITY or SUTTER after September 30 of each calendar year until TNBC notifies CITY and SUTTER that it has Acquired Mitigation Lands which equal the number of ac res necessary to meet the Mitigation Requirement attached to all prior Urban Development Permits issued by CITY and SUTTER plus an additional 200 acres of Mitigation Land. (b) Because TNBC is responsible for Acquiring Mitigation Lands for Planned Develop ment, TNBC will credit mitigation fees collected under the Metro Air Park HCP (MAP HCP) along with all Mitigation Fees collected by CITY and SUTTER for Authorized Development. The collection of Mitigation Fees for Planned Development will be credited agai nst the Mitigation Lands Acquired by TNBC, in chronological order, with priority given to the oldest project among those approved under the MAP HCP and the CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits to have paid Mitigation Fees.

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

5.7 Accounting for Mitigation Lands

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

4.4 of this Agreement.

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

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

5.7.4 Proportion of Mitigation Lands as Marsh . Within three years of the approval of a Site Specific Management Plan a minimum of 25 percent of the Mitigation Lands must be in managed marsh as specified in the NBHCP. Thereafter, a minimum of 25 percent of the Mitigation Lands shall be in managed marsh unti l and unless that amount is increased up to a maximum of 75 percent of the Mitigation Lands in accordance with Section 4.9.3 of this Agreement and Chapter VI of the NBHCP. Pursuant to Section 4.9.3 of this Agreement and Chapter VI of the NBHCP, any 17 increase in the amount of Mitigation Lands required to be in managed marsh shall apply only to Mitigation Lands Acquired to satisfy the Mitigation Requirement for Authorized Development which are acquired after the USFWS or CDFG provide written notice and its ac companying documentation of Recovery Plan adoption, the availability of monitoring results from the Plan Area, or the availability of credible scientific information collected in the Plan Area. Provided the Wildlife Agency’s requested increase in managed marsh complies with Chapter VI of the NBHCP, the failure of TNBC to adopt the increase in managed marsh as requested by either Wildlife Agency shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and possible suspension or revocation of the CITY and SUTTER’s Permits a s set forth under Section 7.6 of this Agreement.

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

6 ASSURANCES

6.1 USFWS

6.1.1 No Surprises Assur ances.
(a) Unforeseen Circumstances . As provided in 50 C.F.R. 17.3, the term “Unforeseen Circumstances” shall mean changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the NBHCP that could not reasonably have been anticipated by the plan developers and USFWS at the time of the Plan’s negotiation and development, and that results in a substantial and adverse change in the status of a Covered Species. (1) “No Surprises” Assurances . Pursuant to the No
Surprises Rule at 50 C.F.R. Secti ons 17.3, 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5), and provided that CITY, SUTTER and TNBC are properly implementing the NBHCP, USFWS shall not require CITY, SUTTER or TNBC to provide additional land, water or other natural resources, or financial compensation or addi tional restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources beyond the level provided for under the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits with respect to Covered Activities under the Permits without the consent of CITY or SUTTER. However, no thing in this Section or in the Assurances Rule shall be interpreted: (1) to restrict the authority of USFWS to take appropriate action under the ESA or applicable regulations to ensure that the NBHCP is properly implemented in accordance with this Agreem ent; (2) to apply to future Adaptive Management modifications for Mitigation Lands that are deemed necessary or appropriate by the USFWS or CDFG as determined in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP and in consultation with CITY, SUTTER and TNBC, to re spond to the results of monitoring in the Plan Area, or to new scientific information relevant to the NBHCP, (3) to apply to future modifications to the NBHCP as a result of future recovery plans as determined in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP, (4 ) to apply to the NBHCP responses to Changed Circumstances identified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP, or (5) to apply to changes anticipated to occur as a result of the Urban Development activities anticipated by the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, Section 2081(b) Permit, or as otherwise approved by the USFWS, provided that such actions, modifications and changes comply with the limitations and restrictions set forth in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. If USFWS makes a finding of unforeseen circumstances, during the period necessary to determine the nature and location of additional or modified mitigation, CITY, SUTTER and TNBC will avoid contributing to appreciably reducing the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the affected species and ensure that third persons un der their control that are carrying out Covered Activities avoid contributing to appreciably reducing the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the affected species. (2) Unforeseen Circumstances Finding
. In the event that
USFWS believes that Unforese en Circumstances may exist in accordance with the “No Surprises” rule, it shall notify CDFG, CITY, SUTTER and TNBC in writing of the applicable specific facts described in Section 6.1.1 above. In the notification, USFWS shall clearly document the basis fo r the proposed finding regarding the existence of Unforeseen Circumstances in accordance with the requirements of 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(b)(5)(iii)(C) and 17.32(b)(5)(iii)(C). Within fifteen (15) days of 18 receiving such notice, CITY, SUTTER and TNBC, USFWS and CDFG shall meet to consider the facts cited in the notice and potential changes to the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program or management and operation of the Mitigation Lands. Pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(b)(5)(iii)(C) and

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

6.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
. The Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits issued
pursuant to this Agreement also constitute Special Purpose Permits under 50 C.F.R. Se ction 21.27 for the “take” (for purposes of this Section, as that term is understood under the MBTA) of those Covered avian Species which are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and which are also protected by the MBTA. The take of such specie s in conjunction with any Authorized Development Project, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the NBHCP and CITY’s, SUTTER’s or TNBC’s Permits, will not be in violation of the MBTA. Such Special Purpose Permits shall be valid for a period of th ree (3) years from the Effective Date of this Agreement provided that CITY’s, SUTTER’s or TNBC’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit remains in effect for that period. Such Special Purpose Permit shall be renewed as to each Permittee, provided that Permittee conti nues 19 to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. Each such renewal shall be valid for the maximum period of time allowed by 50 C.F.R. Section 21.27 or its successor at the time of renewal.

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

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

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

6.2 CDFG

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

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

6.2.3 Assurances
. Except as otherwise required by law, no further mitigation from Urban Development Permittees and/or CITY and SUTTER consisting of land, additional land restrictions, or finan cial compensation beyond that described herein and provided for in the NBHCP, will be required by CDFG to address the impacts of Authorized Development within the respective Permit Areas on the State Protected Species, Covered Species which become listed i n the future as State-protected species, or their habitats pursuant to the CESA. 20 6.2.4 CESA Listing of Currently Unlisted Covered Species . In the event that one or more of the Covered Species that are not State Protected Species are listed as an endanger ed species or threatened species or candidate species pursuant to the CESA (“Additional State Protected Species”), the Section 2081 Permit shall become effective to permit the Incidental Take of such species in connection with Authorized Development within each Permittee’s Permit Area as of the date the species is accepted and designated as a candidate species pursuant to California Fish and Game Code section 2074.2, upon confirmation by CDFG that substantial evidence demonstrates that the Section 2081 Perm it will continue to meet the standards in California Fish and Game Code Section 2081(b) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 783,4 for the Additional State Protected Species. In the event CDFG determines that such standards will not be met, and the Section 2081 Permit does not become effective upon the designation of an Additional State Protected Species as a candidate, threatened, or endangered species under CESA, CDFG shall accept and give due consideration to the minimization and mitigation measures in the NBHCP and this Agreement in support of an application for a permit amendment or for a separate Section 2081 Permit authorizing Incidental Take of any such Additional State Protected Species. CDFG shall make reasonable efforts to review and process the application for an amendment to the Section 2081 Permit or a new Section 2081 Permit to authorize Incidental Take of an Additional State Protected Species to ensure, to the extent consistent with CESA, that the Incidental Take autho rization is effective at the time the Covered Species is accepted and designated as a candidate species under CESA.
(a) The Parties expressly acknowledge that it is the intent of this Agreement that the Mitigation Lands will be administered so as to enhanc e their Habitat Values for all the Covered Species reasonably expected to be found in the Permit Areas. (b) To the extent permitted by the CESA, the CDFG shall consider the NBHCP and this Agreement in any future determination by the CDFG with regard to t he listing of one or more of the currently unlisted Covered Species as an endangered species or threatened species pursuant to the CESA.

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

6.3 Limits on Future Revisions to NBHCP . The Parties acknowledge that the NBHCP expressly provides for revisio ns to the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program and Mitigation Lands as a result of monitoring results collected from the Plan Area, peer -reviewed new scientific information, or future recovery plans for the Covered Species, as part of the Adaptive Managem ent program, in response to Changed Circumstances and for any other cause identified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP, provided that such revisions comply with Chapter VI of the NBHCP. Such revisions are provided for under the Plan and are therefore not subject to the restrictions on additional Mitigation contained in USFWS’s No Surprises Rule or agreed to by CDFG, nor do such revisions require amendment of the Plan or the Permits. Notwithstanding the above, such revisions shall be subject to the following limi tations unless such limitations are waived in writing by CITY, SUTTER and TNBC.
21 (a) The modifications shall not require more than 75 percent of the Mitigation Lands to be converted to or maintained as managed marsh; and (b) The modifications shall not r equire the Mitigation Ratio to be greater than 0.5 acre mitigation to 1.0 acre development. (c) The modifications shall comply with the requirements, limitations and restrictions specified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP.

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

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

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

7 AMENDMENTS AND REMEDIES

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

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

7.3 Land Use Changes . The Parties to this Agreement agree that the adoption and amendment of General Plans, Specific Plans, Community Plans, zoning ord inances and similar ordinances, and the granting of implementing land use entitlement by CITY or SUTTER pertaining to land in their respective Permit Areas, shall be matters within the sole discretion of CITY and SUTTER, and shall not require amendments to this Agreement or the approval of the other Parties to this Agreement. No such action by CITY or SUTTER shall in any way alter or diminish its obligations under this Agreement and the NBHCP. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentences, CITY and SUTTER ack nowledge that they have chosen to implement several of the commitments made by them under the NBHCP through the exercise of their respective land use authorities. Therefore, 22 a failure of CITY or SUTTER to exercise their land use authorities in a manner co nsistent with their obligations under the NBHCP could compromise the effectiveness of the Plan, would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and their respective Permits and could result in suspension or revocation of such Permits as set forth in Section 7.6 o f this Agreement.

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

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

7.6 Suspension or Revocation .

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

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

7.6.3 Status of Urban Development Permittees after Suspension or Revocation .

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

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

7.6.3 above, if a Permit is suspended or revoked, CITY and SUTTER shall not have the authority to rely upon the Permit to approve or carry out any actions that would violate the ESA or CESA in t he absence of such Permit. Notwithstanding the suspension or revocation, CITY and SUTTER shall remain fully liable under the Permits and this Agreement to carry out all of their responsibilities, including the Mitigation Requirement, under the NBHCP, the Permits and this Agreement arising from Authorized Development approved, authorized or carried out by an Urban Development 23 Permittee within the respective Permit Areas between the Effective Date and the date the Permit is suspended or revoked.

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

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

8 MISCELLANEOUS

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

8.2 Termination

8.2.1 Termination by Mutual Consent . CITY or SUTTER may, by mutual agreement with the Wildlife Agencies, terminate this Agreement as to itself. In the event that such mutually agreed -upon termin ation occurs, a written termination agreement shall be executed to ensure that the mitigation required under the NBHCP and this Agreement for all Authorized Development approved, authorized or carried out prior to termination is carried out. Upon executio n of such agreement, the Permits shall thereafter be null and void as to CITY or SUTTER, but not as to other Permittees or Urban Development Permittees or public or private projects for which the Mitigation Requirement has been completed or otherwise assur ed.

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

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

8.2.4 Effect of Termination
. In the event this Agreement is terminated by the
USFWS or CDFG with respect to a Permittee, that Permittee’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit or Section 2081 Permit, as applicabl e, shall, subject to Section 8.2.1 above, be void. CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that, although the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program would mitigate 24 for effects resulting from the Land Use Agencies’ Covered Activities, because the percentage of uplands to wetlands differs between their respective Permit Areas, the NBHCP allows for the Operating Conservation Program provided for under the NBHCP to be reevaluated and revised in the event either CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits are terminated or revoked to ensure that the configuration of Mitigation Lands provided for under the NBHCP continues to adequately mitigate for the impacts of Authorized Development in the remaining jurisdiction.

8.2.5 Status of Mitigation Lands Upon Termination . The Mitigation Lands are to be established in perpetuity. Management of the Mitigation Lands by TNBC in accordance with the NBHCP shall continue in perpetuity, notwithstanding termination, suspension or revocation of CITY’s or SUTTER’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit or Section 2081 P ermit for any reason, unless the suspension or revocation of CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits is due to a violation by TNBC of its Permits. TNBC’s management activities shall be funded from the Mitigation Fees collected on account of past Authorized Developmen t under the Permits which includes endowment components to fund permanent management. None of the assets of the TNBC, including lands or interests in land may be transferred, conveyed, or assigned to any person or entity, except as specified in Sections 3.2.11 and Section 3.2.12 of this Agreement

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

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

City of Sacramento
915 I Street, Room 109
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attn: City Manager

County Administrative Officer
County of Sutter
1160 Civic Center Blvd., Ste. A
Yuba City, CA 95993

United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of the Regional Director
Portland, OR 97232

with a copy to:

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

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

25 with copies to:

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

and to:

Regional Manager
California Department of Fish and Game
1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

The Natomas Basin Conservancy
1750 Cre ekside Oaks Dr., Suite 290
Sacramento, CA 95833
Attn: Executive Manager

Any Party may give notice to the others specifying a different address for notice purposes.

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

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

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

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

8.9 Federal Section 7 Consultations
. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to eliminate
or modify the obligation of a federal agency to consult with the USFWS pursuant to section 7(a) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. Section 1536(a)). To t he maximum extent appropriate, in any consultation under said provision involving CITY or SUTTER or a prospective or other Urban Development Permittee with regard to Covered Species, the USFWS shall ensure that the biological opinion issued in connection w ith the proposed public or private Project which is the subject of the consultation is consistent with the biological opinion issued in connection with the NBHCP, provided that the proposed public or private Project is consistent with the NBHCP. Any biolog ical measures included under the terms and conditions of the Section 7 biological opinion shall, to the maximum extent appropriate, be consistent with the Mitigation Requirement imposed by CITY or SUTTER under the NBHCP as implemented by this Agreement, pr ovided that, unless otherwise required by law, the USFWS shall not impose additional mitigation measures on the project proponent in 26 excess of those that have been or will be required by the CITY or SUTTER pursuant to the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Per mits.

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

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

8.12 Federal Appropriations . USFWS’s commitment to provide technical assistance under the NBHCP and to implement t his Agreement, including the assurances provided herein, are subject to the requirements of the Anti -Deficiency Act and the availability of appropriated funds.

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

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

8.14 References to Regulations . Any reference in this Agreement, the NBHCP, or the Permits to any regulation or rule of USFWS or CDFG shall be deemed to be a reference to such regulation or rule in existence at the time the action is taken.

8.15 Applicable Laws . All activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, the NBHCP or the Permit must be in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

8.16 No Partnership . Neither this Agreement nor the NBHCP shall make or be deemed to make any party to this Agreement the agent for or the partner of any other party.

8.17 Elected Officials Not to Benefit . No member of or delegate to Congress shall be entitled to any share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit that may arise from it.

27 IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the Parties have executed this Agreement to be effective as of the date first set forth above.

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ,
An Agency of the Department of the Interior
of the United States of America

By:_______________________________

Name:____________________________

Title:_____________________________

CALIFOR NIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ,
A Subdivision of the Resources Agency
of the State of California

By:_______________________________

Name:____________________________

Title:_____________________________

CITY OF SACRAMENTO ,
A Municipal Corporation

By:______________________________
Robert P. Thomas
City Manager

Approved as to Form:

______________________
City Attorney

COUNTY OF SUTTER ,
A Political Subdivision of the State of California

By:______________________________

County Administrative Officer

Approved as to Form:
______________________
County Counsel
28 NATOMAS BASIN CONSERVANCY ,
A Non-Profit Corporation

By:______________________________

Name:___________________________

Title:__________________________ __

[add signatories]

29 EXHIBIT A: DEFINITIONS

NBHCP Definitions

Terms used in this Plan shall have the same meaning as those same terms have under the ESA and CESA, except as set forth below. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein, but which are defined in the Plan, shall have the meanings specified in the Plan.

1. Adaptive Management . The term “Adaptive Management” means a method for examining alternative strategies for meeting measurable goals and objectives, and then, if necessary adjusting futu re conservation management actions according to what is learned to achieve those goals and objectives.

2. Amendment . The term “Amendment” shall refer to significant changes to the NBHCP, Implementation Agreement and/or Incidental Take Permit for circumstance s as described in Chapter VI, Section 3(b) of the NBHCP. Amendments include activities which are more significant than and different from revisions (see also “Revisions”).

3. Area B (Out of Basin Mitigation Area) . Area B shall refer to lands identified on F igure 20 of the HCP in which TNBC may pursue acquisition of Mitigation Lands under the specific terms described in Chapter IV, Section 2.b of the HCP, with approval of USFWS and CDFG.

TNBC shall account for all acreage acquired in Area B to ensure that the total amount of such lands does not exceed 20 percent of the total Mitigation Lands.

4. Authorized Development . The term “Authorized Development” means that development for which incidental take is authorized for the City of Sacramento and Sutter County und er this NBHCP. Authorized Development is limited to a total of 15,517 acres of Planned Development (as further defined below in Section III.A) under the NBHCP. Included within the City’s 8,050 acre portion of the Authorized Development are 28 acres of inf rastructure development associated with the Metro Air Park (MAP) project in Sacramento County.

Included within Sutter County’s 7,467 acres of Authorized Development is 16.5 acres of proposed drainage channel improvements located within Sacramento County. Incidental take resulting from the 1,983 acre MAP project, including the 28 acres located in the City of Sacramento, is covered by separate incidental take permits issued by the Wildlife Agencies.

The 15,517 acres of Authorized Development related incident al take within the City and Sutter County combined with the 1,983 acres of development related take within Sacramento County for the MAP project represent a total of 17,500 acres of potential urban development in the Natomas Basin which has been analyzed i n the NBHCP as Planned Development, as further defined below. Any development within the City of Sacramento beyond the 8,050 acres to be covered under its incidental take permits, within Sutter County, beyond the 7,467 acres to be covered under its inciden tal take permits, or within Sacramento County beyond the MAP project, will not be covered under the respective incidental take permits and will trigger a reevaluation of impacts to and mitigation for biological and other resources in the Natomas Basin and amendment of the NBHCP and the incidental take permits or development of a new HCP and issuance of new incidental take permits to address such impacts and mitigation as appropriate.

5. Biological Monitoring
. The term “Biological Monitoring” means the mandato ry element of all HCPs that is designed and implemented to provide the information necessary to assess compliance and project impacts, and verify progress toward the biological goals and

30 objectives for the Plan’s Covered Species and habitats.

6. Biological M onitoring Plan . Refers to specific monitoring requirements to be conducted in the Natomas Basin as specified in Chapter VI, Section E, Subsection 2, and includes both the overall NBHCP Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program and the Site Specific Biological Monitoring Programs.

7. Changed Circumstances . This term “Changed circumstances” is defined in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 17.3 as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the NBHCP that can reasonalby be anticipated by Plan Participants and the USFWS, and that can be planned for (e.g., the listing of a new species, or a fire or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such events.)” Changed circumstances addressed in NBHCP are out lined in Chapter VI, Section K of the HCP.

8. Compliance Monitoring
. The term “Compliance Monitoring” means an itemized, task specific method of verifying that the Permittee is carrying out the terms of the NBHCP, Permit and IA.

9. Conservation Measures . T he term “Conservation Measures” means that accepting and conveying developer mitigation fees, and possibly land dedications, as required under the NBHCP, the Land Use Agencies shall implement a variety of measures that will avoid, minimize or mitigate the take of Covered Species.

10. Covered Activities . The term “Covered Activities” means the Land Use Agencies Covered Activities and the TNBC Covered Activities.

11. Covered Activities, Land Use Agencies . The term “Land Use Agencies Covered Activities” refers to those specific activities identified at Chapter I, Section N.(1) of the NBHCP for which each Land Use Permittee shall be provided coverage under the federal Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits, and the State Section 2081 Permits. Covered Activities generally means the conversion from vacant land or agricultural uses to residential, commercial, and industrial uses, including related public and private infrastructure development and improvements by the City or Sutter County.

12. Covered Activities, TNBC . The term “TNBC Covered Activities” means those activities conducted by TNBC on behalf of the City, Sutter County and other Permittees who may obtain take authorization pursuant to the NBHCP or an HCP based on the NBHCP, within TNBC’s Permit Area. These activities include acquisition, habitat creation, restoration, preservation, enhancement, management and monitoring activities within Conserved Habitat Areas. TNBC’s Covered Activities are described at Chapter I, Section N (3) of the NBHCP.

13. Covered Activities, Water Agenci es
. The term “Water Agencies Covered Activity” refers to those specific activities identified in Chapter I, Section N (2) of the NBHCP for which each Water Agency Permittee shall be provided coverage under the federal Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits, and the State Section 2081 Permits. Such Covered Activities generally include physical maintenance and operation of the Water Agencies’ existing facilities located within the Plan Area, including channel maintenance, vegetation control (where no herbicides are utilized), and construction or improvement of facilities where there is no increase to the footprint of the existing facility.

31 14. Covered Species . The term "Covered Species" means the Federally Protected Species, State Protected Species and the Other Species identified within Table I -1 hereto.

15. ESA and CESA . The term "ESA" means the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The term "CESA" means the California Endangered Species Act, as amended.

16. Exempt Area . The term refers to areas within the Natom as Basin, within the City of Sacramento which are already approved for development or already developed and as shown on Exhibit B of the Implementation Agreement.

17. Federally Protected Species . The term "Federally Protected Species" means those plants and animals listed by the United States (“U.S.”) under the provisions of ESA and shown as Covered Species on Table I -1 hereto that are found, or may be found, in the Permit Areas, as well as those other Covered Species listed on Table I -1 that the USFWS may lis t in the future.

18. Five Point Policy : The term “Five Point Policy” refers to an addendum to the HCP Handbook published by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Service on June 1, 2000.

The five point policy addendum provides clarifying guida nce for conducting the incidental take permit program and for those applying for an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

19. Habitat Values . The term "Habitat Values" means the capability of a land or water are a or associated areas, where indigenous plant(s) or animal(s), individually or collectively, may occur and upon which the Covered Species are dependent, in whole or in part, to provide for some or all of their maintenance, growth and reproduction.

20. Impleme ntation Annual Meeting . The term refers to the annual public meeting held jointly with TNBC, other Permittees, USFWS and CDFG to report on the progress of the HCP Conservation Strategy as described in Chapter VI.3.1 of the NBHCP.

21. Implementation Annual Rep ort. The term refers to the annual report prepared by the TNBC describing the compliance and effectiveness monitoring processes and findings and the status of the progress in implementing the NBHCP in accordance with the requirements of Chapter VI, Sectio n K of the NBHCP.

22. Incidental Take . The term "Incidental Take" means any taking of Covered Species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of otherwise lawful activity.

23. Incidental Take Permits . The terms “Incidental Take Permits,” “ITPs” and “Permits” mean the individual permits issued to each Permittee subject to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the California Endangered Species Act.

24. Independent Mid -Point Review . This term refers to the required review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the HCP by each of the land use agencies at a defined mid -point in the approval of Authorized Development and as more specifically defined in Chapter VI, Section J of the NBHCP.

25. Land Use Agencies . The term “Land Use Agencies”means the City of Sacramento and Sutter County. If and when Sacramento County submits and receives approval of its own

32 ITP, Sacramento County would be considered a Land Use Agency as defined herein.

26. MAP (Metro Air Park) Habitat Conser vation Plan (MAP HCP) . This term refers to final approved Habitat Conservation Plan for the Metro Air Park Project located in the unincorporated portion of the Natomas Basin within Sacramento County, specifically, “Habitat Conservation Plan for the Metro Air Park Project in the Natomas Basin, Sacramento County, California, Prepared by Metro Air Park Property Owner’s Association, Dated 2001.”

27. Mitigation Fees . As defined in Chapter VI, the term "Mitigation Fees" means the one time, up-front fees levied upo n an Authorized Development site (in gross acres) that is used to pay for the Mitigation Land acquisition, enhancement, management, monitoring, and other activities required under the NBHCP. The Mitigation Fees must be paid prior to the issuance of an Urba n Development Permit by the Land Use Permittee. The components of the Mitigation Fee include: Land Acquisition, Restoration/Enhancement/Monitoring, Administration O&M, O&M Endowment Fund, Supplemental Endowment Fund, and Fee Collection Administration as de fined in Chapter VI.

28. Mitigation Lands
. The term “Mitigation Lands” means the reserve lands acquired through collection and use of Mitigation Fees from Authorized Development, and in some cases land which has been accepted for dedication from Authorized De velopment, which will be set aside and managed at a ratio of one -half (½) acre of land protected or preserved for every one (1) acre of land converted to Authorized Development. The NBHCP Operating Conservation Program will result in 8,750 acres of Mitigat ion Lands to be established and managed by TNBC.

29. Mitigation Ratio . The term “Mitigation Ratio” means mitigation for the conversion of land in the respective Permit Areas to Authorized Development at a ratio of one -half (½) acre of land protected or preser ved for every one (1) acre of land converted to Authorized Development.

30. Mitigation Requirement . The term “Mitigation Requirement” means the mitigation requirement for each public and private project is determined by applying the Mitigation Ratio to the la nd area converted to Authorized Development as calculated in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter VI, Section 1.

31. Natomas Basin . "Natomas Basin" or "Basin" means that geographical area depicted in Figure 2, Natomas Basin and Affected Juris dictions.

32. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan . The terms “Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan,” “NBHCP” and “the Plan” mean the year 2002 version of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan prepared for the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, T he Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC), RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual.

33. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, 1997 . The terms “1997 NBHCP” and “1997 Plan” mean the previously approved City of Sacramento Natomas Basin HCP that was the original basis for this 2002 NBHCP.

34. No Surprises Rule . The term “No Surprises Rule” refers the terms and conditions specified in the February 28, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife final rule codifying its “No Surprises” policy into federal regulation (63 FR 8859). The “No Surpr ises” rule states, in part, that: “In

33 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 origina l terms of the Conservation Plan to the maximum extent possible. Additional conservation and mitigation measures will not involve the commitment of additional land, water or financial compensation or restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources otherwise available for development or use under the original terms of the conservation plan, without the consent of the Permittee.” (50 C.F.R. Sections 17.22(b)(5)(iii) and 17.32(b)(5)(iii).) The No Surprises Rules is discussed in Chapter VI, Section K of the NBHCP.

35. Operating Conservation Program
. The term “Operating Conservation Program” means the
totality of the conservation and management measures provided for under the NBHCP to avoid, minimize, mitigate and monitor the impacts of take of the Covered Species as described in Chapters IV through VI of the Plan. The Operating Conservation Program includes totals the Permittees reporting obligations under the Permits and responses to Changed Circumstances described in Chapter VI.

36. Overall Progr am Review . This term refers to a required program review of the effectiveness of the Operating Conservation Program to be initiated at the point Urban Development Permits covering a total of 9,000 acres of development in the Natomas Basin have been issu ed by the Land Use Permittees and by Sacramento County for the Metro Air Park. The areas to be covered by the Overall Program Review are specified and described in Chapter VI, Section I of the NBHCP.

37. Permit Area, City of Sacramento . The term “Permit Are a” as applied to the City of Sacramento means that area designated on Figure 2 of the NBHCP Implementation Agreement that totals 8,050 acres located within the City of Sacramento city limits and in certain locations (i.e., the Panhandle Annexation Area) wi thin the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County. Incidental take authority for the City of Sacramento is limited to this Permit Area.

38. Permit Area, County of Sutter . The term “Permit Area” as applied to Sutter County means that area designated on Figur e 2 of the NBHCP Implementation Agreement that totals 7,467 acres located within the unincorporated areas of Sutter County, and approximately 16.5 acres located within unincorporated Sacramento County. Incidental take authority for Sutter County is limite d to this Permit Area.

39. Permit Area, Natomas Mutual . The term “Permit Area” as applied to Natomas Mutual means canals, ditches, waterways, ponds and open water areas, as well as roads, right -of- ways, facilities, maintenance yards, pumps, pipelines, and wa ter detention facilities, under the direct jurisdiction of Natomas Mutual and inside the inner toe of levees surrounding the Natomas Basin, but not including the Sacramento River levees. Incidental take authority for Natomas Mutual is limited to this Per mit Area.

34 40. Permit Area, RD 1000 . The term “Permit Area” as applied to RD 1000 means canals, ditches, waterways, ponds and open water areas, as well as roads, right -of-ways, facilities, maintenance yards, pumps, pipelines, and water detention facilities, u nder the direct jurisdiction of RD 1000 and inside the inner toe of levees surrounding the Natomas Basin, but not including the Sacramento River levees. Incidental take authority for RD 1000 is limited to this Permit Area.

41. Permit Area, TNBC . The term “Pe rmit Area” as applied to The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC) consists of all lands within the Natomas Basin (the Plan Area), as well as the land bounding the Natomas Basin and extending to the edge of water immediately outside the Natomas Basin levees and Area B as depicted on Figure 20, Out of Basin Mitigation Areas.

42. Permittees . The term "Permittees" means the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, RD 1000, Natomas Mutual and The Natomas Basin Conservancy.

43. Plan Area. The term “Plan Area” means the entire 53 ,537 acres of land within the inside toe of levee of the Natomas Basin levees. The Plan Area refers to the portion of the Natomas Basin that is bounded on the west by the Sacramento River, on the north by the Natomas Cross Canal, on the east by Steelhead Creek (formerly known as Natomas East Main Drain Canal), and on the south by the Garden Highway.

44. Planned Development . The term “Planned Development” means the Authorized Development plus the development of the 1,983 acre Metro Air Park, which is subject t o the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan (“MAP Authorized Development”).

45. Plan Operator . The term “Plan Operator” means The Natomas Basin Conservancy, the entity responsible for implementing the NBHCP.

46. Plan Participants . The term “Plan Participants ” means parties actively involved in implementing the NBHCP, including the Wildlife Agencies (USFWS and CDFG), the Permittees (City of Sacramento, Sutter County, Natomas Mutual and RD 1000), and the Plan Operator (TNBC).

47. Potential Permittees . The term “Potential Permittees” refers to additional entities within the Natomas Basin that may decide to commit to the terms of the NBHCP and the Implementation Agreement and, through the issuance of Permits by the Wildlife Agencies, join as full Permittees at a fut ure date.

48. Protected Species . The term "Protected Species" means those plants and animals listed under the State CESA and the Federal ESA.

49. Revisions . Refers to minor changes to the NBHCP as specified in Chapter VI, Section 3.a of the NBHCP. Revisions to t he NBHCP are changes to the Plan provided for under the Operating Conservation Program, including Adaptive Management changes and Mitigation Fee adjustments. These revisions would not result in operations under the NBHCP that are significantly different fr om those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved, result in adverse impacts on the environment that are new or significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved.

50. Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits . The terms "Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits" or "Permits" as used in

35 this Plan means the permits issued by the USFWS under Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA which authorize the incidental take of a Covered Species which may occur as a result of urban development activities, includi ng public facilities projects, within the City of Sacramento and Sutter County, or as a result of the operation and/or maintenance, including the construction and improvements with no significant increase to the existing footprint, of flood control or wate r supply activities, water ditches, canals, pumphouses, maintenance facilities, or other ancillary facilities within the Natomas Basin, or as a result of habitat management, enhancement, or restoration activities on reserve lands. "Permit" may also be used in this Plan to collectively refer to the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits, and the Section 2081 Permits.

51. Section 2081 Permits
. The terms "Section 2081 Permits” or “Permits” means the permits for the incidental take of threatened and endangered species, liste d under the CESA, issued by the CDFG under Section 2081(b) and/or 2081.1 of the California Fish and Game Code, or any successor section to authorize the incidental take of a Covered Species which may occur as a result of urban development activities, inclu ding public facilities projects, within the City of Sacramento and Sutter County, or as a result of the operation and/or maintenance, including the construction and improvements with no significant increase to the existing footprint, of flood control or wa ter supply activities, water ditches, canals, pumphouses, maintenance facilities, or other ancillary facilities within the Natomas Basin, or as a result of habitat management, enhancement, or restoration activities on reserve lands. "Permits" may also be used in this Agreement to refer collectively to the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits and/or the Section 2081(b) or 2081.1 Permits.

52. Site Specific Management Plan . The terms “Site Specific Management Plan” and “SSMP” mean those plans that TNBC is required to co mplete for each reserve unit that it acquires.

SSMP’s shall include operations plans that address on -site habitat restoration, enhancement, maintenance and management activities that will be presented to the NBHCP TAC for approval on a three year basis.

53. Swainson’s Hawk Zone . This zone is defined as the lands which are not currently developed (excluding the 250 acres of land designated “Urban” on the City of Sacramento General Plan and the North Natomas Community Plan located within the City of Sacramento ) and which are located within the Natomas Basin and within one mile east of the Sacramento River and extending from the Natomas Cross Canal on the north and Interstate 80 on the south. See also Figure 13 of the NBHCP.

54. System of Reserves . The term “syste m of reserves” means Mitigation Lands generally and includes all habitat conserved and managed for the Covered Species, including rice fields by TNBC.

55. Take or Taking . With regard to any activities subject to ESA, the terms “Take” or “Taking” shall have the same meaning as provided in the ESA. With regard to any activities subject to CESA, the terms “Take” or “Taking” shall have the same meaning as provided in CESA.

56. Technical Advisory Committee . The terms “Technical Advisory Committee” and “TAC” mean the advisory group of technical experts selected by the Permittees and the Wildlife Agencies to assist TNBC Board with directing the implementation of the NBHCP.

57. The Natomas Basin Conservancy . The terms “The Natomas Basin Conservancy,” “the

36 Conservancy” or “TN BC” shall mean the independent entity established for the purpose of implementing the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan on behalf of the City, Sutter County and other Potential Permittees. The TNBC is also a Permittee for purposes of implementation o f the reserve system.

58. TNBC Mitigation Land or Reserve Area . The term “TNBC Reserve Area” or “TNBC Mitigation Land” shall mean those areas where TNBC is authorized to acquire and manage wildlife reserves subject to the provisions of the NBHCP. Such areas shall include all lands within the Natomas Basin, as well as the land bounding the Natomas Basin and extending to the edge of water immediately outside the Natomas Basin levees and Area B as depicted on Figure 20, Out of Basin Mitigation Areas. The TNBC R eserve Area and the TNBC Permit Area are coterminous.

59. Unforeseen Circumstances . The term “Unforeseen circumstances” is defined at 50 C.F.R.

17.3 as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan that could n ot reasonably have been anticipated by plan developers and the USFWS at the time of the NBHCP’s negotiation and development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the Covered Species. Unforeseen circumstances are discussed i n Chapter VI, Section K of the NBHCP.

60. Urban Development Permit and Urban Development Permittee . The term “Urban Development Permit” shall mean the final authorization granted by the Land Use Agencies prior to disturbance of undeveloped land in conjunction with a public or private development project. An Urban Development Permit may also be used to refer to a grading permit or notice to proceed. An “Urban Development Permittee” refers to the individual, agency or company applying for approval, or receiving approval of an Urban Development Permit from the Land Use Agencies.

61. Water Agencies . The term “Water Agencies” means RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual.

Natomas Mutual is a private company and not a governmental agency.

62. Wildlife Agencies . The term “Wildlife Agen cies” means the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game.

/78/111/114/116/104/98/111/114/111/117/103/104
/78/111/114/116/104/32/78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/69/115/116/97/116/101/115 /80/97/114/107/119/97/121/32/80/108/97/122/97
/78/111/114/116/104/112/111/105/110/116/101
/78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/71/97/116/101/119/97/121
/67/111/114/112/111/114/97/116/101/32/67/101/110/116/101/114 /78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/67/114/111/115/115/105/110/103 /78/97/116/111/109/97/115
/77/97/114/107/101/116/32/80/108/97/99/101
/68/101/108/32/80/97/115/111/32/82/111/97/100/32/80/85/68 /35
/65/108/108/101/103/104/97/110/121
/66/97/115/105/110/32/54
/35
/80/97/114/107/118/105/101/119/32/83/116/111/99/107/112/105/108/101 /35 /80/97/114/107/118/105/101/119
/35
/71/97/116/101/119/97/121/32/87/101/115/116
/35
/84/104/101/32/67/114/111/115/115/105/110/103
/87/101/115/116/98/111/114/111/117/103/104
/78/111/114/116/104/98/111/114/111/117/103/104
/35
/83/117/116/116/101/114/32/72/101/97/108/116/104
/35
/70/97/114/109/32/66/117/114/101/97/117/32/80/114/111/106/101/99/116 /35
/72/101/114/105/116/97/103/101/32/80/108/97/99/101
/85/110/105/116/121/32/80/97/114/107/115/105/100/101/32/86/105/108/108/97/103/101 /66/84/86/32/67/114/111/119/110/32/86/105/108/108/97/103/101 /82/105/118/101/114/119/97/108/107
/83/104/111/114/101/98/105/114/100/82/105/118/101/114/103/97/116/101 /35 /50/51/57/57/32/71/97/116/101/119/97/121/32/79/97/107/115/32/68/114/105/118/101 /35
/84/114/117/120/101/108/32/82/111/97/100/32/69/120/116/46/32/78/111/114/116/104/32/76 /84/114/117/120/101/108/32/82/111/97/100/32/69/120/116/101/110/115/105/111/110/32 /78/111/114/116/104/32/76/111/111/112
/35
/82/105/118/101/114/32/86/105/101/119/32/35/50
/35
/67/114/111/119/110/32/67/111/114/112/111/114/97/116/101/32/67/101/110/116/101/114 /67/70/68/32/57/55/45/48/49/32/67/97/110/97/108/32/73/109/112/114/111/118/101/109/101/110/116/115 /71/111/108/100/101/110/108/97/110/100
/35
/35
/67/114/101/101/107/115/105/100/101
/35
/82/105/118/101/114/32/86/105/101/119/32/35/49
/78
/67/105/116/121/32/111/102/32/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/44/32/80/108/97/110/110/105/110/103/32/38/32/66/117/105/108/100/105/110/103/32/68/101/112/97/114/116/109/101/110/116 /72/67/80/32/80/97/105/100/32/65/114/101/97/115/46/97/112/114 /77/97/121/32/50/48/48/50
/66/97/115/101/108/105/110/101/32/77/97/112/32/45/32/69/120/104/105/98/105/116/32/66 /67/105/116/121/32/111/102/32/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111 /69/120/101/109/112/116/32/65/114/101/97/32/45/32/69/120/105/115/116/105/110/103/32/68/101/118/101/108/111/112/109/101/110/116 /68/101/118/101/108/111/112/109/101/110/116/32/115/117/98/106/101/99/116/32/116/111/32/49/57/57/55/32/72/67/80/32/40/49/57/57/55/45/50/48/48/50/41 /68/101/118/101/108/111/112/109/101/110/116/32/115/117/98/106/101/99/116/32/116/111/32/50/48/48/50/32/72/67/80 /67/105/116/121/32/66/111/117/110/100/97/114/121
/72/67/80/32/80/97/121/109/101/110/116/115
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/82/105/118/101/114 /80/111/119/101/114/108/105/110/101/32/82/111/97/100
/82/105/101/103/111/32/82/111/97/100
/83/97/110/107/101/121/32/82/111/97/100
/63/195
/83/97/99/114/97/109/101/110/116/111/32/67/111/117/110/116/121 /83/117/116/116/101/114/32/67/111/117/110/116/121
/80/97/99/105/102/105/99/32/65/118/101/110/117/101
/79/102/102/115/105/116/101/32/99/97/110/97/108
/105/109/112/114/111/118/101/109/101/110/116/115
/116/111/32/115/117/112/112/111/114/116
/83/111/117/116/104/32/83/117/116/116/101/114
/67/111/117/110/116/121/32/83/112/101/99/105/102/105/99/32/80/108/97/110/32/45/32 /80/97/114/116/32/111/102/32/83/117/116/116/101/114/32/67/111/117/110/116/121 /80/101/114/109/105/116/32/65/114/101/97
/69/108/118/101/114/116/97/32/82/111/97/100
/67/72/50/77/32/72/105/108/108/32/82/68/68/32/65/114/99/86/105/101/119/32/80/114/111/106/101/99/116/32/70/105/108/101/32/32/92/92/84/104/111/114/92/67/97/114/116/49/92/114/100/100/103/105/115/92/110/97/116/111/109/97/115/104/99/112/92/110/97/116/95/104/99/112/46/97/112/114/32/32/101/120/104/105/98/105/116/95/99/46/112/100/102/32/32/52/58/48/53/32/112/46/109/46/32/32/48/55/45/51/48/45/50/48/48/50 /48 /49 /77/105/108/101/115 /49/32/73/110/99/104/32/61/32/52/53/48/48/32/70/101/101/116 /78/97/116/111/109/97/115/32/66/97/115/105/110
/69/120/101/109/112/116/32/102/114/111/109/32/72/67/80
/83/117/116/116/101/114/32/67/111/117/110/116/121/32/80/101/114/109/105/116/32/65/114/101/97 /76/69/71/69/78/68
/83/111/117/116/104/32/83/117/116/116/101/114/32/67/111/117/110/116/121 /83/112/101/99/105/102/105/99/32/80/108/97/110/32/65/114/101/97 /69/88/72/73/66/73/84/32/67
/83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89/32/66/65/83/69/76/73/78/69/32/77/65/80 /83/85/84/84/69/82/32/67/79/85/78/84/89/32/80/69/82/77/73/84/32/65/82/69/65 /65/78/68/32/69/88/69/77/80/84/32/76/65/78/68/83
/78/79/84/69/58/32/32/65/76/76/32/76/65/78/68/83/32/87/73/84/72/73/78/32/69/88/73/83/84/73/78/71 /32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/82/79/65/68/32/82/73/71/72/84/83/45/79/70/45/87/65/89/32/65/82/69 /32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/32/67/79/78/83/73/68/69/82/69/68/32/69/88/69/77/80/84

42 Exhibit D -List of Covered Species in Permit Area

TABLE I - 1

LISTED, CANDIDATE, AND OTHER SPECIES ADDRESSED IN THE NBHCP

AND COVERED BY ITS ASSOCIATED PERMITS

Species

Federal
Status

State
Status

Habitat Notes

1 Aleutian Canada goose
Branta canadensis
leucopareia

Grazes in marshes and stubble fields, roosts on the water

2 bank swallow
Riparia riparia

Nests in river banks, forages for insects over open water, croplands, and grasslands

3 burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia

SSC

Prefers open, dry grassland and desert habitats

4 loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus

SSC

Prefers open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees,
fences, and posts. Will use cropland.

5 Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni

Breeds in riparian forest; known nesting sites in trees along Sacramento River in Natomas Basin. Forages for
small mammals in grasslands and croplands.

6 tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor

SSC

Nests in marshes with bulrush, blackberry or cattails;
three known occurrences in Natomas Basin. Forages on
the ground in grasslands and croplands.

7 white-faced ibis
Plegadis chihi

SSC

Forages in flooded rice fields

8 giant garter snake
Thamnophis gigas

Forages in marshes, low gradient open waterways and
flooded rice fields, hibernates in canal berms and other uplands; several known occurrences in Natomas Basin
9 northwestern pond turtle
Clemmys marmorata
marmorata

SSC

Lives in permanent bodies of water; requires floating
vegetation, logs, rocks or banks for basking. Hibernates and lays eggs is uplands.

10 California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense

SSC

Winters in ground squirrel burrows or other holes; breeds in vernal pools, stockponds , and other seasonal
wetlands.

11 western spadefoot toad
Scaphiopus hammondii

SSC

Primary habitat is grasslands; breeds in shallow
temporary pools
12 valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus

Lives and reproduces on elderberry shrubs found along
rivers and canals.

13 midvalley fairy shrimp
Branchinecta mesovallensis
n. sp.

Vernal pool obligate often found in small pools; likely to occur in Plan Area

14 vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi

Vernal pool obligate; widely distributed in Sacramento
County
15 vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi

Vernal pool obligate; widely distributed in Sacramento
County
16 Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
Gratiaola heterosepala

Low-terrace species found in shallow water margins of
vernal pools
17 Colusa Grass
Neostapfia colusana

Occurs in large deep pools with substrates of adobe mud but also in smaller pools; known in Yolo County

43 #

Species

Federal
Status

State
Status

Habitat Notes
18 delta tule pea
Lathyrus jepsonii ssp.jepsonii
SC Perennial twining vine occurs in both riparian and marsh habitats
19 legenere
Legenere limosa

Found in wet places or vernal pools below 400 feet in
elevation
20 Sacramento Orcutt grass
Orcuttia viscida

Found in relatively large, deep vernal pools in eastern Sacramento County
21 Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii

Tuberose perennial likely to occur in drainage or irrigation ditches
22 slender Orcutt grass
Orcuttia tenuis

Found in relatively large, deep vernal pools in eastern Sacramento County

Key to Abbreviations

Federal
E = Listed as endangered C = Candidate for federal listing, data sufficient T = Listed as threatened SC = Species of Concern --informal category, formerly called candidate 2 species (data for listing
insufficient)
State
E = Listed as Endangered R = Listed as Rare
T = Listed as Threatened SSC = Species of Special Concern

Sacramento City CouncilDecember 2, 2025

Sacramento City Council
December 2, 2025