Woodland City Council
May 19, 2026

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-9 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources Natural Communities1/
Habitat Types2 Description
Fresh Emergent
Wetland and Vernal
Pool
Complex1/Freshwater
Wetlands2
There is very little freshwater emergent wetland, vernal pool complex and freshwater wetlands within one mile of the existing ULL. A vernal pool complex occurs at Woodland Regional Park, southeast of Woodland, within one mile of the existing ULL (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Fresh emergent wetlands and freshwater wetlands also occur southeast of Woodland within one mile of the existing ULL.

Fresh emergent wetlands include aquatic and semiaquatic vegetation types (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Freshwater wetlands, also often called seasonal wetlands, form in seasonally flooded or saturated soils in depressions or at the edges of streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes, as well as ditches and canals (page 4.4-6). Perennially flooded areas are typically dominated by cattails, tule (Schoenoplectus acutus var. occidentalis), and California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus) that can reach up to 12 feet in height (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Seasonally saturated or inundated areas contain much shorter vegetation and are more variable in the composition of their plant species (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Dominant species in many lower elevation seasonal wetlands include swamp timothy (Crypsis schoenoides), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and spikerushes (Eleocharis macrostachya) (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

The fresh emergent wetland natural community supports a number of common wildlife species and many species of wintering waterfowl in large numbers (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Fresh emergent wetlands provide habitat for the following special status species: northern harrier, least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), tricolored blackbird, giant garter snake, and northwestern pond turtle (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

Vernal pools are types of freshwater wetlands (page 4.4-6). Vernal pools are ephemeral wetlands that form in shallow depressions underlain by an impervious or restrictive soil layer near the surface that restricts the percolation of water (page 4.4-7). These wetland types support low- growing, herbaceous plant communities dominated by annual plants and typically characterized by a high percentage of native plant species, many of which may be endemic (restricted) to vernal pools (page 4.4-7). Other seasonal wetlands that are not underlain by claypan and that are characterized by generalist wetland plant species rather than vernal pool or alkali sink endemics may also be present (page 4.4-7). It is often difficult to distinguish between vernal pool complex natural community and alkali prairie natural community. The following special status wildlife species are known to use these features: vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). The upland portions of vernal pools also provide foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk, whitetailed kite, and western burrowing owl (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Special status plant species that occur in the vernal pool complex include Ferris’ milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. Ferrisae), alkali milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. Tener), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana), Heckard’s peppergrass (Lepidium latipes var. heckardii), Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana), Solano grass (Tuctoria mucronata), and Baker’s navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri) (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

Alkali Sink1/Alkali
Prairie2
There is very little alkali sink and alkali prairie within one mile of the existing ULL, in general proximity to Willow Slough and the existing Woodland Regional Park and Maupin Unit of the Alkali Sink Preserve. It primarily occurs within the City of Woodland. The alkali prairie community occurs on seasonally flooded, saline-alkaline clay soils with salts that include sodium, magnesium, and boron. Salt encrustations are often deposited on the surface as the soil dries (page 4.4-7). Typical salt-tolerant plants found in the alkali prairie habitat include saltgrass (Distichlis spictata), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), common spikeweed (Centromadia pungens), Parish’s glasswort (Arthrocnemum subterminale), and bush seepweed (Suaeda nigra). Low areas, or sinks, with a relatively impermeable surface layer retain ponded water through spring into early summer and are generally devoid of perennial vegetation (page 4.4-7). Some areas also include flat-face downingia (Downingia pulchella), gumplant (Grindelia camporum), alkali coyote thistle (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Very small patches of alkali- adapted species are present in the natural community and include pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), bush seepweed (Suaeda nigra), alkali heath (Frankenia salina), and annual hairgrass (Deschampsia danthonioides) (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). The following special status wildlife species are known to use these features: vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). The upland portions of alkali prairie also provide foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk and the white-tailed kite (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

Habitat for the special status species palmate-bracted bird’s beak is also found (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-10 Draft SEIR Natural Communities1/
Habitat Types2 Description
Valley Foothill
Riparian1/Riparian
Forest2
There is very little Valley Foothill Riparian and Riparian Forest within one mile of the existing ULL; it exists in the south along Willow Slough southeast of Woodland and to the east in the Cache Creek Settling Basin adjacent to the Yolo Bypass (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

Riparian forests are structurally diverse, tree-dominated habitats that occur along the margins of perennial water bodies (page 4.4-7). The valley foothill riparian natural community consists of a multilayered woodland plant community with a tree overstory and diverse shrub layer (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Canopy species include mature valley oak (Quercus lobata), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), ash (Fraxinus spp.), and willows (Salix spp.). In a mature riparian forest, canopy heights reach approximately 100 feet, and canopy cover ranges from 20 to 80 percent (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). California rose (Rosa californica), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) may form dense thickets in the understory of mature riparian forests (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

California grape (Vitis californica) creates a dense network of vines in the canopy (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). The valley foothill riparian natural community is usually associated with streams and creeks with low-velocity flows, floodplains, and low topography (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). Special status species that can be found in Valley foothill riparian/Riparian forest is rose mallow (Hibiscus lasiocarpus var. occidentalis), pallid bat, yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), northwestern pond turtle, Swainson’s hawk, western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), white-tailed kite, and least Bell’s vireo (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). The California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) has potential to occur in the valley foothill riparian natural community, although there are no known occurrences of the California red-legged frog in this natural community in Yolo County (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

Lacustrine and
Riverine1/Waterways2
Lacustrine and riverine habitat and waterways exist within one mile of the existing ULL. These include waterways consisting of perennial streams and other drainages, primarily agricultural ditches (page 4.4-9). Willow Slough is also located to the south of Woodland is partially within one mile of the exiting ULL. (page 4.4-8). Turbidity, water temperature, and oxygen content affect the quality of habitat for many plant and animal species within these features (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). These features can provide breeding and foraging habitat for the following special status wildlife species the northwestern pond turtle, giant garter snake, and California tiger salamander (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018). While agricultural ditches generally provide lower habitat quality than streams, agricultural ditches can support giant garter snake or provide dispersal habitat for this species (page 4.4-9). The vegetation can also provide foraging or nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk and numerous species of migratory birds. Artificial ponds in or adjacent to urban areas often support nonnative species, such as red-eared sliders and American bullfrogs, that out-compete or are predators of native species such as northwestern pond turtle (Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018).

Table Notes
1 Natural Communities are listed in this table as defined in Chapter 2, Existing Ecological Conditions, of the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. 2 Habitat Types are listed in this table as defined in Section 4.4.2.1, Common Habitat Types in the Planning Area and Section 4.4.2.2, Sensitive Habitat Types in the Planning Area and Vicinity of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 4.4-6).

Source: 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (2017) and Yolo Habitat Conservancy Geomapper (2025).

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-11 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources

Figure 4.3-1 Clark Pacific Utility Extension Alignments and General Plan Habitat Types

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-12 Draft SEIR

Figure 4.3-2 Bayer Utility Extension Alignments and General Plan Habitat Types

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-13 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources

Figure 4.3-3 Clark Pacific Utility Extension Alignments and Yolo HCP/NCCP Land Cover Types

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-14 Draft SEIR

Figure 4.3-4 Bayer Utility Extension Alignments and Yolo HCP/NCCP Land Cover Types

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-15 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources Table 4.3-3 of this SEIR summarizes the presence of modeled habitat for covered special-status species in the Yolo HCP/NCCP related to the Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments and within one mile of the existing ULL. Only two species have modeled habitat attributable to both utility extension alignments and a total of four species have modeled habitat attributable to the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment.

Table 4.3-3 Presence of Yolo HCP/NCCP Modeled Habitat for Covered Special-Status Species Special Status Species
Clark Pacific
Presence
Bayer
Presence
Presence
within One
Mile of ULL
Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) No No No
California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) No No No Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) No No Yes
Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) No No Yes
Palmate-bracted Bird's Beak (Chloropyron palmatum) No No Yes Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Yes Yes Yes
Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) Yes No Yes
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) No No Yes Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Yes No Yes
Northwestern Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata) No No Yes White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) Yes Yes Yes
Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) No No Yes Table Notes
ULL = Urban Limit Line; Yolo HCP/NCCP = Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Presence: if modeled habitat is present within the 25-foot construction buffer and the 500-foot survey area of the Clark Pacific or Bayer utility extension alignments.

Source: Yolo Habitat Conservancy Geomapper (2025)
Figure 4.3-5 depicts the CNDDB occurrences of special-status species reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (Exhibit 4.4-3, page 4.4-13) and current CNDDB occurrences within this same area. The species are the same as reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, with the addition of a green sturgeon - southern distinct population segment (DPS) (Acipenser medirostris pop. 1) occurrence to the very east of the Planning Area and ULL in the Yolo Bypass.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-16 Draft SEIR

Figure 4.3-5 CNDDB Occurrences

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-17 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES
Based on the updated database queries and the results of the field survey, the special-status plant species potential-to-occur table presented in the Table 4.4-2 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, has been revised to reflect current conditions. Table 4.3-4 of this SEIR provides the updated potential-to-occur information, incorporating data from the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and expanded to include the Clark Pacific utility extension alignments and Bayer utility extension alignments. These revisions are based on the information presented in Figure 4.3-1 and Figure 4.3-2 together with findings from the recent field survey.

Since the approval of the SEIR, the following species have had CNDDB occurrences in the region and are now included in Table 4.3-4.
► Baker's navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri)- California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.1 ► Keck's checkerbloom (Sidalcea keckii) - CRPR 1B.2
► Pappose tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi) CRPR 1B.2 Based on updated database queries and the results of the field survey, no special-status plant species have the potential to occur within the utility extension alignments.

Table 4.3-4 Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur Species Federal State1,2 Habitat
Potential for Occurrence
documented in 2035
General Plan and CAP EIR
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension
Alignment
Bayer Utility
Extension
Alignment
Ferris’ milk-
vetch
Astragalus
tener var.
ferrisae
— 1B.1 Subalkaline flats and
mesic sites in valley
and foothill
grassland, meadows
and seeps; 15 to 250
foot elevation.

Bloom: April–May.

Could occur. Potentially
suitable habitat is present
in the alkali prairie and
annual grassland habitats
in the Planning Area.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is
not present within
the survey buffer.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is
not present within
the survey buffer.

Alkali milk-
vetch
Astragalus
tener var. tener
— 1B.2 Alkaline soils within
playas, vernal pools,
and adobe clay valley
and foothill grassland
habitats; 0 to
196-foot elevation.

Bloom: March–June
Known to occur. Two
occurrences documented
within the Planning Area.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is
not present within
the survey buffer.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is
not present within
the survey buffer.

Heartscale
Atriplex
cordulata var.
cordulata
— 1B.2 Saline or alkaline
flats or scalds in
chenopod scrub,
desert scrub, or
meadow, and
grassland habitats in
sandy soils; 1 to 500
foot elevation;
Blooms April–
October.

Could occur. Potentially
suitable habitat is present
in the alkali prairie and
annual grassland habitats
in the Planning Area.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is
not present within
the survey buffer.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is
not present within
the survey buffer.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-18 Draft SEIR Species Federal State1,2 Habitat
Potential for Occurrence
documented in 2035
General Plan and CAP EIR
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension
Alignment
Bayer Utility
Extension
Alignment
Brittlescale
Atriplex
depressa
— 1B.2 Alkaline clay soils
within chenopod
scrub, meadow and
seeps, playas, vernal
pools, and valley and
foothill grassland
habitats; 0 to 1,050
foot elevation.

Bloom: April–
October
Known to occur. Four
occurrences documented
within the Planning Area.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is
not present within
the survey buffer.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is
not present within
the survey buffer.

Pappose
tarplant
Centromadia
parryi ssp.
parryi
__ 1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal
prairie, Marshes and
swamps (coastal salt),
Meadows and seeps,
Valley and foothill
grassland (vernally
mesic); Alkaline
(often); 0-1380 feet
elevation.

Bloom: May-
November
Not previously evaluated. Unlikely to
occur: Although
grassland habitat
is present near the
alignment, the
required habitat is
not present within
the alignment.

Unlikely to
occur. Required
habitat is not
present within or
near the
alignment.

Palmate-
bracted bird’s
beak
Chloropyron
palmatum
E E
1B.1
Alkaline soils in
seasonally flooded
lowlands; 16 to 510
foot elevation.

Bloom: May–October
Known to occur. Three
occurrences documented
within the Planning Area.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is
not present within
the survey buffer.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is
not present within
the survey buffer.

San Joaquin
spearscale
Extriplex
joaquinana
— 1B.2 Alkaline soils on
chenopod scrub,
meadow and seeps,
playas, and valley
and foothill
grassland; 3 to 2,740
foot elevation.

Bloom: April–
October
Known to occur. Three
occurrences documented
within the Planning Area
and one occurrence
documented within two
miles of the Planning
Area.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is
not present within
the survey buffer.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is
not present within
the survey buffer.

Woolly rose-
mallow
Hibiscus
lasiocarpus
var.
occidentalis
— 1B.2 Marshes and swamps
(freshwater); from 0
to 320 feet in
elevation.

Blooms June to
September.

Unlikely to occur. Marsh
habitat is very limited in
the Planning Area and of
marginal quality.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
habitat is not
present within the
survey buffer.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
habitat is not
present within the
survey buffer.

Heckard’s
pepper-grass
Lepidium
latipes var.
heckardii
— 1B.2 Alkaline flats in
valley and foothill
grassland; 6 to 656
foot elevation.

Bloom: March–May
Known to occur. Two
occurrences documented
within the Planning Area
and one occurrence
documented within two
miles of the Planning
Area.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is
not present within
the survey buffer.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is
not present within
the survey buffer.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-19 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources Species Federal State1,2 Habitat
Potential for Occurrence
documented in 2035
General Plan and CAP EIR
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension
Alignment
Bayer Utility
Extension
Alignment
Baker's
navarretia
Navarretia
leucocephala
ssp. bakeri
__ 1B.1 Cismontane
woodland, Lower
montane coniferous
forest, Meadows and
seeps, Valley and
foothill grassland,
Vernal pools; Mesic.
15-5710 feet
elevation.

Bloom: April-July.

Not previously evaluated. Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
habitat is not
present within the
survey buffer.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
habitat is not
present within the
survey buffer.

California alkali
grass
Puccinellia
simplex
— 1B.2 Saline flats, mineral
springs; below 3,000
feet elevation.

Bloom: March–May.

Known to occur. Suitable
habitat is present in the
alkali prairie and annual
grassland habitats in the
Planning Area and this
species has been
previously documented at
two locations in the
southeast portion of the
Planning Area.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
habitat is not
present within the
survey buffer.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
habitat is not
present within the
survey buffer.

Keck's
checkerbloom
Sidalcea keckii
__ 1B.1 Cismontane
woodland, Valley and
foothill grassland;
Clay, Serpentinite;
245-2135 feet
elevation.

Bloom: April-May
Not previously evaluated. Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
soils and substrate
are not present
within the survey
buffer.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
soils and substrate
are not present
within the survey
buffer.

Suisun Marsh
aster
Symphiotrichum
lentum
— 1B.2 Brackish and
freshwater marshes
and swamps; 0–10
foot elevation;
Blooms: May–
November.

Unlikely to occur. Marsh
habitat is very limited in
the Planning Area and of
marginal quality. This
species is restricted to the
Suisun Marsh and
Sacramento-San Joaquin
River Delta.

No potential to
occur. Alignment
is not within
elevation range
for this species.

No potential to
occur. Alignment
is not within
elevation range
for this species.

Saline clover
Trifolium
hydrophilum
— 1B.2 Marshes and swamps,
vernal pools, and
mesic, alkaline valley
and foothill
grassland; 0 to
984-foot elevation.

Bloom: April–June
Known to occur. One
occurrence documented
within the Planning Area.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
swamps, vernal
pools or alkaline
grassland habitat
is not present
within the survey
buffer.

Unlikely to
occur. Suitable
swamps, vernal
pools or alkaline
grassland habitat
is not present
within the survey
buffer.

Table Notes
CAP = Climate Action Plan; EIR = Environmental Impact Report 1 State: E = Listed as endangered under CESA.
2 California Rare Plant Ranks and extensions
1B = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere.
.1 = Seriously endangered in California (>80 percent of occurrences are threatened and/or high degree and immediacy of threat ). .2 = Fairly endangered in California (20 to 80 percent of occurrences are threatened).

Sources: Table 4.4-2 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, CNDDB 2025, CNPS 2025; compiled by AECOM in 2025

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-20 Draft SEIR

SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES
Based on the updated database queries and the results of the field survey, the special-status wildlife species potential-to-occur table presented in Table 4.4-3 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR has been revised to reflect current conditions. Table 4.3-5 of this SEIR provides the updated potential-to-occur information, incorporating data from the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and expanded to include the Clark Pacific utility extension alignments and Bayer utility extension alignments. The following species have been listed either under federal or state listing or have had their listing modified and these species are included in Table 4.3-5 of this SEIR:
► Northwestern Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata) – Federal Potentially Threatened ► Western Spadefoot (Spea hammondii) – Federal Potentially Threatened ► Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) – Federal Potentially Threatened ► Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea)– State Candidate Endangered ► Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) – State Candidate Endangered ► Western bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) – State Candidate Endangered As noted in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, there are no special-status fish species that are known to occur in the Planning Area and no critical habitat for special status fish species is found in the Planning Area or the surrounding radius of two miles (page 4.4-15). Three fish species listed as threatened under the federal ESA, delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificaus), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and green sturgeon - southern DPS (Acipenser medirostris pop. 1) were identified in the database queries. However, the Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments and the area within one mile of the existing ULL is outside of the known range of delta smelt, which is restricted to San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Willow Slough is located within one mile of the existing ULL, but the natural channel has been blocked off and replaced with the Willow Slough Bypass, which flows directly east to the Western Edge of the Yolo Bypass, and special status fish species have not been documented in it (Figure 4.3-5). Part of the Yolo Bypass within one-mile of the existing ULL has been documented for green sturgeon - southern DPS (Figure 4.3-5); however, there are no existing commercial facilities in that area. Therefore, Table 4.3-5 does not include special-status fish species.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-21 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources Table 4.3-5 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur Species
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Listing
Status2 Habitat
Potential to Occur Documented in 2035
General Plan and CAP EIR
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension Alignment
Bayer Utility Extension
Alignment
Invertebrates
Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
T _ Blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana)
shrubs (the host plant species), typically
as an abundant component in dense
riparian habitat below 3,000 feet in
elevation; on slightly higher and older
floodplain surfaces without saturated
soils.

Could occur. Elderberry shrubs that
could support valley elderberry
longhorn beetle may be present in the
Planning Area. Nearest known records
are from Cache Creek approximately

1.75 miles northwest of the Planning
Area.

Could occur. Two
blue elderberry shrubs
on the northern edge
of the leach field; no
sign of valley
elderberry longhorn
beetle exit holes on
shrubs.

Unlikely to occur.

Required habitat is not
present within or
adjacent to the
alignment; no blue
elderberry shrubs
present.

Crotch's bumble bee
Bombus crotchii
_ CE Open grassland and scrub; nests
underground. Food plants include:
milkweed, lupine (Lupinus spp.),
burclover (Medicago spp.), phacelia
(Phacelia spp.), and sage (Salvia spp.).

Not previously evaluated; Could
Occur. Open grassland and scrub
could support this species and may be
present.

Could occur.

Marginal habitat is
present near the
alignment.

Could occur.

Marginal habitat is
present near the
alignment.

Monarch butterfly
Danaus plexippus
PT _ Open habitats including fields,
meadows, weedy areas, marshes, and
roadsides. Monarch butterflies roost in
wind-protected tree groves (such as
eucalyptus) with nectar and water
sources nearby. Caterpillar host plants
are milkweeds (Asclepias spp.).

Not previously evaluated; Could
Occur. Suitable habitat may be
present.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable habitat
(milkweed) was not
identified within the
alignment.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable habitat
(milkweed) was not
identified within the
alignment.

Western bumblebee
Bombus occidentalis
_ CE Nests underground.

Visits a wide variety of wildflowers. In
California, this species is currently
observed in high elevation meadows,
forests, riparian areas in the Sierra
Nevada and Cascades as well as in
coastal grasslands in northern
California.

Not previously evaluated; Unlikely to
occur. Outside of this species current
known range.

Unlikely to occur.

The alignment is
outside this species’
current known range.

Unlikely to occur.

The alignment is
outside this species’
current known range.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-22 Draft SEIR Species
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Listing
Status2 Habitat
Potential to Occur Documented in 2035
General Plan and CAP EIR
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension Alignment
Bayer Utility Extension
Alignment
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
T _ Vernal pool habitats ranging from small,
clear pools in sandstone rock outcrops to
large, turbid, and/or alkaline vernal
pools. Most commonly in grass- or
mud-bottomed basalt flow depression
pools in unplowed grasslands.

Could occur. Vernal pools are present
in the Planning Area. There are a total
of 10 CNDDB occurrence records in
Yolo County.

Unlikely to occur.

Vernal pools are not
present within the
alignment.

Unlikely to occur.

Vernal pools are not
present within the
alignment.

Vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
E _ Vernal pools or swales that form in
slight depressions after being inundated
following fall and winter rains. The
pools contain clear to highly turbid
water and have an impervious hardpan,
claypan, or basalt layer beneath the soil
surface that retains the water for a few
months at a time.

Likely to occur. Vernal pools are
present in the Planning Area. This
species is known to occur in the alkali
grassland preserve adjacent to the
Planning Area at the southwest corner
of County Road 25 and County Road
103. There are a total of 7 CNDDB
occurrence records in Yolo County.

Unlikely to occur.

Vernal pools are not
present within the
alignment.

Unlikely to occur.

Vernal pools are not
present within the
alignment.

Amphibians and
Reptiles

California red-legged
frog
Rana draytonii
T SSC Foothill streams with dense shrubby or
emergent riparian vegetation, minimum
11–20 weeks of water for larval
development, and upland refugia for
aestivation.

Unlikely to occur. The Planning Area
is outside this species’ currently known
occupied range. Nearest known
occurrences are approximately 25
miles southwest of the Planning Area
in Napa County. This species is not
known to disperse at distances over

2.25 miles and is believed to have been
completely eliminated from the Valley
floor.

Unlikely to occur.

The alignment is
outside this species’
currently known
occupied range.

Unlikely to occur.

The alignment is
outside this species’
currently known
occupied range.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-23 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources Species
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Listing
Status2 Habitat
Potential to Occur Documented in 2035
General Plan and CAP EIR
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension Alignment
Bayer Utility Extension
Alignment
California tiger
salamander
Ambystoma
californiense
T T Vernal pools and seasonal wetlands with
a minimum 10-week inundation period
and surrounding uplands, primarily
grasslands, with burrows and other
belowground refugia (e.g., rock or soil
crevices).

Could occur. Seasonal wetlands and
ponds that may provide suitable
breeding habitat for this species are
present in the Planning Area and this
species could also be present in
underground refugia in annual
grassland and alkali prairie habitats
within 1.3 miles of breeding habitat.

The only known record of this species
from the nine quad search area is a
1993 record from the City of Davis.

There are eight CNDDB occurrence
records of this species in Yolo County.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable vernal pool
and seasonal wetland
habitat is not present
within the alignment.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable vernal pool
and seasonal wetland
habitat is not present
within the alignment.

Northwestern pond
turtle
Actinemys marmorata
PT SSC Permanent and nearly permanent waters,
including ponds, lakes, marshes, slow-
moving streams, rivers, sloughs, and
irrigation canals/ditches with open bank
areas, emergent vegetation, and logs or
boulders for basking. Nests along the
aquatic habitat shore or in adjacent
uplands in sunny, open hillsides or
fields, as long as appropriate soil
moisture and warmth are present.

Generally nest within 325 feet of aquatic
habitat, but has been reported to nest up
to 1,600 feet from water.

Could occur. Potentially suitable
aquatic habitat is present in and near
the Planning Area and there is potential
for this species to nest in undeveloped
grassland and alkali prairie habitats in
the Planning Area. There are a total of
two CNDDB occurrence records
documented in Yolo County.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable aquatic
habitat is not present
within the alignment.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable aquatic
habitat is not present
within the alignment.

Western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
PT SSC Shallow streams with riffles and
seasonal wetlands, such as vernal pools
in annual grasslands and oak woodlands,
also temporary rainpools.

Not previously evaluated; Could
Occur. Suitable habitat may be present
adjacent to existing vernal pools and
annual grasslands.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable aquatic
habitat is not present
within the alignment.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable aquatic
habitat is not present
within the alignment.

Giant garter snake
Thamnophis gigas
T T Cultivated rice, freshwater marsh, and
slow moving streams, ditches, or canals.

Likely to occur. Nine occurrences
documented within two miles of the
Planning Area and suitable habitat is
present. There are a total of 54
CNDDB occurrence records
documented in Yolo County.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable aquatic
habitat and
connectivity are not
present within the
alignment.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable aquatic
habitat and
connectivity are not
present within the
alignment.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-24 Draft SEIR

Species
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Listing
Status2 Habitat
Potential to Occur Documented in 2035
General Plan and CAP EIR
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension Alignment
Bayer Utility Extension
Alignment
Birds*
Swainson’s Hawk
Buteo swainsoni
(nesting)
_ T Nests in riparian forest and isolated
trees, open woodlands, and woodland
margins; nests and forage in grasslands
and agricultural fields.

Known to occur. Suitable nesting and
foraging habitat are present. Numerous
occurrences documented throughout
Planning Area. There are a total of 516
CNDDB occurrence records
documented in Yolo County.

Known to occur.

Numerous large trees
are present adjacent to
the alignment for
nesting potential;
foraging habitat
present; documented
presence during field
survey.

Known to occur.

Numerous large trees
are present adjacent to
the alignment for
nesting potential;
foraging habitat
present; documented
presence during field
survey.

Northern harrier
Circus hudsonius
(nesting)
_ SSC Nests and forages in grasslands,
agricultural fields, and marshes. Nests
on the ground within patches of dense,
often tall, vegetation in undisturbed
areas.

Could occur. Suitable nesting and
foraging habitat is present in and
adjacent to the Planning Area. There is
one CNDDB occurrence record of this
species in Yolo County.

Could occur. Suitable
habitat is present near
alignment.

Could occur. Suitable
habitat is present near
alignment.

White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
(nesting)
_ FP Forages in grasslands and agricultural
fields; nests in riparian zones, oak
woodlands, and isolated trees.

Could occur. Suitable nesting and
foraging habitat is present in and
adjacent to the Planning Area. There
are five CNDDB occurrence records of
this species in Yolo County.

Could occur.

Foraging habitat and
isolated nesting trees
are present near
alignment.

Could occur.

Foraging habitat and
isolated nesting trees
are present near
alignment.

Least bittern
Ixobrychus exilis
(nesting)
_ SSC Nests in freshwater and brackish
marshes with tall, dense emergent
vegetation with clumps of woody plants
over deep water.

Unlikely to nest. This species may
nest adjacent to the Planning Area in
suitable habitat along Cache Creek and
Willow Slough, but there is no suitable
nesting habitat in the Planning Area.

Unlikely to nest:

Suitable nesting
habitat is not present
due to lack of deep-
water bodies.

Unlikely to nest:

Suitable nesting
habitat is not present
due to lack of deep-
water bodies.

Western snowy plover
Charadrius nivosus
nivosus
(nesting)
T SSC Nests and forages on sandy and gravelly
beaches along the coast and the shores
of inland alkali lakes. Has also been
documented nesting on levees of
artificial ponds in Yolo County,
including sewage treatment ponds.

Needs sandy or gravelly, friable soils for
nesting.

Could occur. One record of nesting in
the Planning Area at the Woodland
Sugar Ponds in 1970 and has been
documented nesting in the Yolo
Bypass Wildlife Area as recently as
2006. These are the only two CNDDB
records of this species in Yolo County.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable nesting
habitat is not present
due to lack of sandy or
gravelly, friable soils
for nesting.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable nesting
habitat is not present
due to lack of sandy
or gravelly, friable
soils for nesting.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-25 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources Species
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Listing
Status2 Habitat
Potential to Occur Documented in 2035
General Plan and CAP EIR
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension Alignment
Bayer Utility Extension
Alignment
Mountain plover
Charadrius montanus
(wintering)
_ SSC Forages in short grasslands and plowed
agricultural fields where vegetation is
sparse and trees are absent.

Likely to occur. One occurrence
documented within the Planning Area.

There are a total of 11 CNDDB records
of this species in Yolo County.

Could occur.

Foraging habitat is
present near the
alignment.

Could occur.

Foraging habitat is
present near the
alignment.

Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
(nesting)
T E Nests in large blocks of deciduous
riparian thickets or forests with dense,
low-level or understory foliage adjacent
to slow-moving watercourses,
backwaters along broad, lower
floodplains of larger river systems.

Willow and cottonwood are almost
always a component of the vegetation.

In the Sacramento Valley, also utilizes
adjacent walnut orchards.

Unlikely to nest. Could possibly nest
in riparian habitats adjacent to the
Planning Area along Cache Creek or
Willow Slough, but there is no suitable
habitat present in the Planning Area.

The species known range of
distribution is limited to the Upper
Sacramento, Lower Feather, South
Fork Kern, Amargosa, Santa Ana, and
Colorado Rivers.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable riparian
habitat is not present
in or near the
alignment. The
alignment is outside
the species’ current
breeding range.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable riparian
habitat is not present
in or near the
alignment. The
alignment is outside
the species’ current
breeding range.

Grasshopper sparrow
Ammodramus
savannarum
(nesting)
_ SSC Forages and nests in dense grasslands;
favors a mix of native grasses, forbs,
and scattered shrubs. Nests in
depressions on the ground at the bases
of grass clumps. Prefers large tracts of
habitat.

Could occur. This species could nest
in the annual grassland or alkali prairie
habitats in the Planning Area. This
species has not been documented in the
Planning Area. There is one
documented occurrence in Yolo
County.

Unlikely to occur.

Large tracts of
suitable habitat in
large tracts of dense
grasslands with a mix
of native grasses,
forbs and scattered
shrubs are not present
.

Unlikely to occur.

Large tracts of
suitable habitat in
large tracts of dense
grasslands with a mix
of native grasses,
forbs and scattered
shrubs are not present.

Song sparrow –
“Modesto” population
(Melospiza melodia
pop. 1)
(year round)
_ SSC Nests and forages primarily in emergent
marsh, riparian scrub, and early
successional riparian forest habitats in
the north-central portion of the Central
Valley; infrequently in mature riparian
forest and sparsely vegetated ditches and
levees. Forages primarily on exposed
ground or in leaf litter.

Could occur. This species is unlikely
to nest in the Planning Area due to a
lack of suitable marsh and riparian
habitat, but may nest adjacent to the
Planning Area and forage within the
Planning Area. There are four
documented occurrences in Yolo
County.

Unlikely to occur.

This species is
unlikely to nest due to
a lack of suitable
marsh and riparian
scrub habitat.

Unlikely to occur.

This species is
unlikely to nest due to
a lack of suitable
marsh and riparian
scrub habitat.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-26 Draft SEIR Species
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Listing
Status2 Habitat
Potential to Occur Documented in 2035
General Plan and CAP EIR
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension Alignment
Bayer Utility Extension
Alignment
Purple martin
Progne subis
(nesting)
_ SSC Nests in tree cavities, bridges, freeway
overpasses, utility poles, lava tubes,
and buildings. Forages in foothill and
low montane oak and riparian
woodlands; less frequently in
coniferous forests and open or
developed habitats.

Could occur. This species could
potentially nest under I-5 or SR 113
overpasses or in other man-made
structures in the Planning Area. The
potential for this species is low however
because the only known breeding colony
in the region is in the City of
Sacramento where they nest in weep
holes in a hollow-box bridge over I-5.

Unlikely to occur.

Lack of known
breeding colonies
within the alignment
and existing trees
provide marginal
nesting habitat.

Unlikely to occur.

Lack of known
breeding colonies
within the alignment
and existing trees
provide marginal
nesting habitat.

Bank swallow
Riparia riparia
(nesting)
_ T Nests in colonies in unvegetated
vertical banks or cliffs with fine-
textured, sandy soils, typically next to
streams, rivers, or lakes. Forages in a
variety of habitats near nests.

Unlikely to nest. Could nest in riparian
habitats adjacent to the Planning Area
along Cache Creek or Willow Slough if
suitable vertical bank structure is
present, but there is no suitable nesting
habitat present in the Planning Area.

There have been 18 occurrences of this
species documented in the CNDDB in
Yolo County.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable nesting
habitat along vertical
banks or cliffs are not
present.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable nesting
habitat along vertical
banks or cliffs are not
present.

Tricolored Blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
(nesting)
_ T/SSC Forages in agricultural lands and
grasslands; nests in marshes, riparian
scrub, and other areas that support
cattails or dense thickets of shrubs or
herbs.

Could occur. There is a very limited
amount of potential breeding habitat in
the Planning Area, but breeding habitat
is abundant in the immediate vicinity
along Cache Creek and Willow Slough.

Three occurrences have been
documented in the vicinity of the
Planning Area, including a large, active
nesting colony southeast of the Planning
Area on the north side of Willow
Slough. There are 23 CNDDB
occurrence records of this species in
Yolo County.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable nesting
habitat, such as
blackberry thickets
and cattails, is not
present.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable nesting
habitat, such as
blackberry thickets
and cattails, is not
present.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-27 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources Species
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Listing
Status2 Habitat
Potential to Occur Documented in 2035
General Plan and CAP EIR
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension Alignment
Bayer Utility Extension
Alignment
Yellow-headed
blackbird
Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
(nesting)
_ SSC Nests in marshes with tall, dense
emergent vegetation, most commonly
at the edges of lakes, reservoirs, or
ponds with relatively deep water.

Forages in freshwater marshes, and
sometimes in nearby open fields,
preferably with moist ground.

Unlikely to occur. This species may
nest in freshwater marsh habitats in the
vicinity, but there is no suitable nesting
habitat in the Planning Area. May forage
in grassland and alkali prairie habitat
within the Planning Area. There is only
one CNDDB record of this species in
Yolo County.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable nesting
habitat in the form of
marshes and tall dense
emergent vegetation
and deep water is not
present.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable nesting
habitat in the form of
marshes and tall dense
emergent vegetation
and deep water is not
present.

Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
(nesting)
_ SSC Forages and nests in grasslands,
shrublands, and open woodlands. Nests
in trees and shrubs.

Could occur. The annual grassland and
alkali prairie habitats in the Planning
Area provide suitable foraging habitat
and this species could nest in trees or
shrubs in or near these habitats. There
are no CNDDB records of this species in
Yolo County.

Could occur. Suitable
nesting habitat is
present adjacent to the
alignment .

Could occur. Suitable
nesting habitat is
present adjacent to the
alignment.

Yellow-breasted chat
Icteria virens
(nesting)
_ SSC Forages and nests in riparian thickets
of willow, blackberry, and wild grape
within 10 feet of the ground.

Could occur. Suitable habitat is present
in and adjacent to the Planning Area but
there are no CNDDB records of this
species in Yolo County.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable riparian scrub
habitat is not present=.

Unlikely to occur.

Suitable riparian scrub
habitat is not present.

Yellow warbler
Setophaga petechial
(nesting)
_ SSC Nests in riparian vegetation such as
willows, cottonwoods, and alders.

Unlikely to nest. The Planning Area is
outside this species’ current breeding
range. There are no CNDDB records of
this species in Yolo County.

Unlikely to occur.

The alignment is
outside the species’
current breeding range
.

Unlikely to occur.

The alignment is
outside the species’
current breeding range
.

Western burrowing
owl
Athene cunicularia
hypugaea
(year round)
_ CE/SSC Nests and forages in grasslands,
agricultural lands, open shrublands,
and open woodlands with existing
ground squirrel burrows or friable
soils.

Could occur. Suitable habitat is present
in the Planning Area in grasslands,
alkali prairie and agricultural habitats.

One occurrence documented within 2
miles of the Planning Area. There have
been 39 CNDDB occurrences of this
species documented in Yolo County.

Could occur: No
suitable burrows
detected along
alignment. Suitable
foraging habitat is
present near
alignment.

Could occur:

Burrows were
detected within the
retention pond area,
though no sign of the
species was detected.

Suitable foraging
habitat is present near
alignment.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-28 Draft SEIR Species
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Listing
Status2 Habitat
Potential to Occur Documented in 2035
General Plan and CAP EIR
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension Alignment
Bayer Utility Extension
Alignment
Least Bell’s vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
(nesting)
E E Nests and forages in low, dense riparian
vegetation along perennial or
intermittent streams.

Unlikely to nest. The Planning Area is
outside this species’ current breeding
range and suitable nesting habitat is
lacking within the Planning Area.

Potentially suitable nesting habitat is
present near the Planning Area along
Cache Creek and Willow Slough.

Species has been observed in Yolo
Bypass Wildlife Area (2011 CNDDB
record) presumably attempting to
establish first nesting territory in Yolo
County in decades.

Unlikely to occur.

Alignment is outside
the species’ current
breeding range and
lacks suitable nesting
habitat.

Unlikely to occur.

Alignment is the
species’ current
breeding range and
lacks suitable nesting
habitat.

Mammals
American badger
Taxidea taxus
_ SSC Drier open shrub, forest, and herbaceous
habitats with friable soils for digging
burrows.

Unlikely to occur. Requires extensive
patches of open, undisturbed habitat.

The small habitat patch size, lack of
connectivity to suitable large patches
of habitat, and surrounding agriculture
and urban development in the Planning
Area make it unsuitable for this
species. Last record from the area was
1997 roadkill record from junction of
County Road 31 and County Road 97D
west of Davis. There is a U.C. Davis
museum specimen that was collected
from the City of Woodland, but the
date of collection is unknown.

Unlikely to occur.

Extensive patches of
undisturbed habitat
are not present;
burrows present were
not large enough for
badger use.

Unlikely to occur.

Extensive patches of
undisturbed habitat
are not present;
burrows present were
not large enough for
badger use
Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
_ SSC Deserts, grasslands, shrublands,
woodlands, and forests. Most common
in open, dry habitats with rocky areas
for roosting. Roosts in rock crevices,
oak hollows, bridges, or buildings.

Could occur. This species could roost
under bridges or in other man-made
structures in the Planning Area. There
is one CNDDB record of this species in
the Planning Area from 1957.

Could occur. Suitable
habitat present; oak
hollows present.

Unlikely to occur.

Required habitat is not
present within the
alignment; no oak
hollows, rocks, or
woodlands

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-29 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources Species
Federal
Listing
Status1
State
Listing
Status2 Habitat
Potential to Occur Documented in 2035
General Plan and CAP EIR
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension Alignment
Bayer Utility Extension
Alignment
Western red bat
Lasiurus blossevilli
_ SSC Roosts primarily in dense tree foliage,
especially in cottonwood, sycamore, and
other riparian trees or orchards. Prefers
habitat edges and mosaics with trees that
are protected from above and open below
and open areas for foraging, including
grasslands, shrublands, and open
woodlands.

Unlikely to occur. Maternity and
roosting colonies unlikely to occur in
the Planning Area because of lack of
suitable habitat; however, this species
may roost in adjacent riparian habitats
along Cache Creek and Willow
Slough and this species could forage
in the Planning Area. The only recent
record of this species in the area is a
1999 record from the Sacramento
River near Knights Landing.

Unlikely to occur.

Required habitat is not
present.

Unlikely to occur.

Required habitat is not
present.

Table Notes
CAP EIR =Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database; I-5 = Interstate 5; SR = State Route
1 Federal: T = Listed as threatened under ESA; E = Listed as endangered under ESA 2 State: T = Listed as threatened under CESA; E = Listed as endangered under CESA; C = Candidate for listing under CESA; FP = Fully Protected under California Fish and Game Code; SSC = Considered a species of special concern by CDFW
* Because the distribution and abundance of individual bird species varies seasonally, the season, or life phase, during which the species is of conservation concern in California is provided in parentheses beneath the bird species scientific name. There is potential for any of these bird species to fly over or pass through the Planning Area and proposed project area, however, these species would not be at risk of adverse effects unless nesting on or otherwise residing in the Planning Area or proposed project area during the season or life phase when the species is of conservation concern in California.

A nine-quadrant search was used for CNDDB.

Source: Table 4.4-3 of 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR; CNDDB 2025, USFWS 2025; CNPS 2025, compiled by AECOM in 2025.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-30 Draft SEIR Based on updated database queries and the results of the field survey, the following special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur within the utility extension alignments:
► Along the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment, nine special-status wildlife species have potential to occur. These include valley elderberry longhorn beetle, Crotch’s bumble bee, Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, burrowing owl, and pallid bat. Potential habitat for these species occurs within or adjacent to annual grassland, riparian vegetation, and mature trees along the alignment. Two elderberry shrubs near the leach field provide potential host plants for valley elderberry longhorn beetle, although no sign of beetle activity was detected. ► Along the Bayer utility extension alignment, seven special-status wildlife species have potential to occur.

These include Crotch’s bumble bee, Swainson’s hawk, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, yellow-breasted chat, and burrowing owl. Foraging and nesting habitat for these species occurs primarily within open agricultural lands, scattered trees, and along the retention pond margins where small mammal burrows were also observed, although no sign of burrowing owl activity was detected.

4.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds for evaluating the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, except where noted below. These thresholds are used to evaluate potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, with a focus on impacts beyond those addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. A significant impact to biological resources would occur if the proposed project would:
► have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
► have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS; ► have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrologic interruption, or other means; ► interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; ► conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;
► conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-31 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR include the following threshold, which is currently not part of Appendix G but is included in the impact analysis of this SEIR to align with the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and comprehensively analyze the proposed project.
► substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species.

The impact numbering in the section below corresponds to those numbers used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR for ease of reference.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.4-1: Loss of Special-status Plants and Loss of Special-status Plant Habitat

GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan concentrates future development in areas that are primarily used for agriculture and therefore have a low potential to support special-status plants and minimizes the potential for direct removal of special- status plants by designating most of the known occupied habitat and suitable habitat as open space and focusing new development on agricultural lands (page 4.4-31 and 4.4-32). The 2035 General Plan (and the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) includes Goal 7.B establishes policies to ensure that the City maintains and protects its biological resources, including special-status plant species through coordinated conservation planning and sensitive site design. It emphasizes the use of the Yolo HCP/NCCP for project consistency (Policy 7.B.1) and requires the protection of sensitive habitat types (Policy 7.B.2) and special-status species (Policy 7.B.3). Policies also support the preservation of fish and wildlife resources (Policy 7.B.4), the designation and maintenance of open space for conservation (Policy 7.B.5), and the protection of Woodland Regional Park as a preserve for wildlife and rare plants (Policy 7.B.7). Finally, the plan calls for sensitive site planning (Policy 7.B.11) to avoid or minimize impacts on native trees, special-status species, and critical habitats during new development. Goal 7.B Maintain and Protect Biological Resources, Policy 7.B.1 Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, Policy 7.B.2 Sensitive Habitat Types, Policy 7.B.3 Special-Status Species, Policy 7.B.4 Fish and Wildlife, Policy 7.B.5 Open Space for Conservation, Policy 7.B.7 Woodland Regional Park, and Policy

7.B.11 Sensitive Site Planning (pages 4.4-42 and 4.4-43). The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR also includes the following mitigation measures (pages 4.4-34 and 4.4-36) to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the loss of special-status plants and loss of special-status plant habitat including:
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a – Implementation Program Biological Resources 1 (pages 4.4-34 and 4.4-35) This measure requires biological inventory surveys conducted according to applicable standards and protocols for projects that may affect special-status species or habitats. ► Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b – Amend Policy 7.B.5., Policy 7.B.7, and Policy 7.B.11. strengthens General Plan policies to permanently protect sensitive habitat types—including alkali sink and prairie, freshwater wetlands, freshwater marsh, riparian forest, and drainages—as well as special-status plant occurrences.

Implementation of these mitigation measures combined with current laws, regulations, and policies would reduce impacts because the General Plan would preserve the majority of the known special-status plant occurrences and

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-32 Draft SEIR suitable habitat in the Planning Area, within designated Open Space land uses that would be protected under permanent conservation easements (page 4.4-36). These provisions would require new developments to identify and avoid special-status plant populations and their habitats to the extent feasible and compensate for the loss of special-status plants through establishment of new populations or other appropriate measures in coordination with state and federal agencies (page 4.4-36). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (page 4.4-36).

PROPOSED PROJECT
There is a relatively low potential of adversely affect special-status plant species during construction of the Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments given the lack of suitable habitat (Table 4.3-1 and Table 4.3-4). As described in Section 3.3.2, it is unknown if other existing commercial facilities would pursue extending utilities within one mile of the existing ULL given the decision to extend utilities represents a cost and is a unique and individual business decision influenced by multiple factors. Most of the area within one mile of the existing ULL is cultivated lands, agricultural lands, or other agriculture/semiagricultural and incidental to agricultural lands.

These areas typically have marginal habitat for special status plant species due to the high level of disturbance, use of fertilizers and pesticides and other activities that regularly occur in these lands. There are some existing businesses to the south of Woodland in general proximity to Willow Slough and the existing Woodland Regional Park and Maupin Unit of the Alkali Sink Preserve. These areas are designated as open space and are permanently preserved under conservation easements (City of Woodland Preserve and Spring Lake Alkali Sink Preserve). The proposed project would not develop lands or disturb areas within these preserved locations; therefore, the proposed project would not impact these areas or special-status plant species that may be present. The City would evaluate other potential utility extension alignments through the application process and execution of a service agreement to confirm a utility extension could be provided, and confirm consistency with the existing general plan policies, and establish any conditions of approval that may be needed prior to construction. The proposed project would continue to implement the 2035 General Plan’s multiple goals and policies as identified and evaluated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, to reduce impacts to special-status plant species, including the following: Goal 7.B Maintain and Protect Biological Resources, Policy 7.B.1 Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, Policy 7.B.2 Sensitive Habitat Types, Policy 7.B.3 Special-Status Species, Policy

7.B.4 Fish and Wildlife, Policy 7.B.5 Open Space for Conservation, Policy 7.B.7 Woodland Regional Park, and Policy 7.B.11 Sensitive Site Planning (pages 4.4-42 and 4.4-43). Although unlikely, there is a potential presence of special-status plant species within one mile of the existing ULL; therefore, consistent with Mitigation Measure

4.4-1a – Implementation Program Biological Resources 1 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, project applicants will be required to implement the following mitigation measures. These mitigation measures incorporate standard survey requirements for special-status plant species and standard best management practices and avoidance and minimization measures prior to and during construction. Some of these measures are identified in the Yolo HCP/NCCP EIS/EIR Appendix C, which is contained in Appendix F of this SEIR. ► Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a – Implementation Program Biological Resources 1 ► Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c General Avoidance and Minimization Measures:
o GM01: Preconstruction Survey. Before the start of repair activities, a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey to identify special-status plant and wildlife species and associated habitats.

Surveys will be conducted within the project footprint and staging/equipment storage area(s). If required,

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-33 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources special-status species and/or buffers will be marked in the field by a qualified biologist, using temporary fencing, high-visibility flagging, or other means that are equally effective. Preconstruction surveys for special-status plant species will incorporate blooming period surveys if utility extensions occur in areas other than developed or agricultural lands.
o GM02: Construction Site Trash Maintenance. All project-related trash items, such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps, will be collected in closed containers that are removed from the rehabilitation site each day and disposed at an appropriate off-site location, to minimize attracting wildlife to work areas.
o GM03: Yolo HCP/NCCP avoidance and minimization measures (AMM)3, Confine and Delineate Work Area. Where natural communities and covered species habitat are present, workers will confine land clearing to the minimum area necessary to facilitate construction activities. Workers will restrict movement of heavy equipment to and from the project site to established roadways to minimize natural community and covered species habitat disturbance. The project proponent will clearly identify boundaries of work areas using temporary fencing or equivalent and will identify areas designated as environmentally sensitive. All construction vehicles, other equipment, and personnel will avoid these designated areas.
o GM04: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM4, Cover Trenches and Holes during Construction and Maintenance. To prevent injury and mortality of special-status species, including: giant garter snake, northwestern pond turtle, and California tiger salamander, workers will cover open trenches and holes associated with implementation of covered activities that affect habitat for these species or design the trenches and holes with escape ramps that can be used during non-working hours. The construction contractor will inspect open trenches and holes prior to filling and contact a qualified biologist to remove or release any trapped wildlife found in the trenches or holes.
o GM05: Equipment Inspection. Inspections will be conducted under all vehicles and heavy equipment for the presence of wildlife before the start of each workday, when equipment is staged overnight. In addition, a search for wildlife will be conducted in all pipes, culverts, and similar structures that have been stored on site for one or more nights, before they are buried, capped, or moved. o GM06: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM6, Conduct Worker Training. All construction personnel will participate in a worker environmental training program approved/authorized by the Conservancy and administered by a qualified biologist. The training will provide education regarding sensitive natural communities and covered species and their habitats, the need to avoid adverse effects, state and federal protection, and the legal implications of violating the FESA and NCCPA Permits. A pre-recorded video presentation by a qualified biologist shown to construction personnel may fulfill the training requirement. o GM07: Clearing and Grubbing Best Management. Clearing of vegetation will be kept to the minimum necessary, especially the clearing around native oaks.
o GM08: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM8, Avoid and Minimize Effects of Construction Staging Areas and Temporary Work Areas. Project proponents should locate construction staging and other temporary work areas in areas that will ultimately be a part of the permanent project development footprint. If construction staging and other temporary work areas must be located outside of permanent project footprints, they will

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-34 Draft SEIR be located either in areas that do not support habitat for covered species or are easily restored to prior or improved ecological functions (e.g., grassland and agricultural land). Construction staging and other temporary work areas located outside of project footprints will be sited in areas that avoid adverse effects on the following.
▪ Serpentine, valley oak woodland, alkali prairie, vernal pool complex, valley foothill riparian, and fresh emergent wetland land cover types.
▪ Occupied western burrowing owl burrows. Occupied for the purpose of AMM8 means at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying the burrow within the last three years. Occupancy of a burrow may also be indicated by owl sign at the burrow entrance, including molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site. ▪ Nest sites for covered bird species and all raptors, including noncovered raptors, during the breeding season.
▪ Project proponents will follow specific AMMs for sensitive natural communities and covered species in temporary staging and work areas (see below and Impact 4.4-2). For establishment of temporary work areas outside of the project footprint, project proponents will conduct surveys to determine if any of the biological resources listed above are present. Within one year following removal of land cover, project proponents will restore temporary work and staging areas to a condition equal to or greater than the covered species habitat function of the affected habitat. Restoration of vegetation in temporary work and staging areas will use clean, native seed mixes approved by the Conservancy that are free of noxious plant species seed
In addition, project applicants will also implement to avoid and minimize potential adverse effects on special- status plant species using the following mitigation measures:
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM10, Avoid and Minimize Effects on Wetlands and Waters ► Mitigation Measure 4.4-1f: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM11, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Palmate- Bracted Bird’s Beak
Similar to the analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan, these mitigation measures would reduce, avoid, or minimize impacts because they would identify or avoid special-status plant habitat or populations and their habitats during construction of utility extension alignments. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-35 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources Impact 4.4-2: Loss and Degradation of Habitat for Special-status Wildlife Species and Potential Direct Take of Individuals
The 20235 General Plan and CAP EIR provides a detailed evaluation of eight CESA or ESA listed species:

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB), vernal pool branchiopods, California tiger salamander, northwestern pond turtle, giant garter snake, special-status migratory birds, Pallid bat and considers impacts on the 12 additional special-status wildlife species that are not officially listed under CESA or ESA (Table 4.4-3, pages 4.4- 15 to 4.4-20). Special-status wildlife species could be affected by proposed land use changes either directly during land conversion or indirectly through modification of suitable habitat, changes in vegetation as a result of land development, and habitat fragmentation. Wildlife could be killed or injured, and nests destroyed at the time of conversion to urban or other development (page 4.4-36). Specifically:
► Valley elderberry longhorn beetle: Elderberry shrubs may be present within the Planning Area in a number of locations (e.g. fence rows, roadways, drainage ditches) (page 4.4-37). Elderberry shrubs within areas that could be developed could be removed resulting in the loss of beetle larva and habitat (page 4.4-37). ► Vernal Pool Branchiopods: Implementing the General Plan would allow development in areas that could support vernal pools that have potential to support vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (page 4.4-38). Vernal pool tadpole shrimp is known to occur in the Maupin Unit of the Alkali Sink Preserve just east of the Woodland Regional Park (page 4.4-38). The majority of vernal pool habitat in the Planning Area is within the Woodland Regional Park and adjacent parcels to the north that are designated as Open Space under the Proposed Project, and that are proposed to be permanently preserved under a conservation easement (page 4.4-38). Although the majority of potential habitat for vernal pool branchiopods would be preserved under the General Plan, potential habitat may be present at other locations in the Planning Area that would be subject to development, including annual grassland habitat. Conversion of vernal pool habitat, if it is present, to developed land uses could result in direct take of vernal pool branchiopods listed under the ESA if they are present (page 4.4-38).
► California Tiger Salamander: Implementation of the General Plan would develop areas that hat support freshwater wetlands and ponds that could provide suitable breeding habitat for California tiger salamander, and in grasslands that provide potential upland habitat for this species; however, there are no current or historic records of this species occurring in or near Woodland, except a 1993 record of a single California tiger salamander from the city of Davis (page 4.4-38).
► Northwestern Pond Turtle: Ponds, drainages, and marshes in and adjacent to the Planning Area provide suitable habitat for northwestern pond turtle; however, the likelihood of resident populations of this species occurring in the Planning Area is low due to a lack of adequately sized water bodies with suitable hydrology and vegetation (page 4.4-39).
► Giant Garter Snake: Implementing the General Plan would allow development in areas containing agricultural ditches and other waterways that provide dispersal habitat and possibly resident habitat for giant garter snake (page 4.4-39). Draining, grading, or filling aquatic habitat during construction, as well as construction activities within 200 feet of suitable aquatic habitat, could result in direct take of giant garter snake if they are present and permanent loss of habitat (page 4.4-39).

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-36 Draft SEIR ► Special-Status and Migratory Birds: the special-status and migratory birds are know or have the potential to nest and forage in the Planning Area and development could reduce nesting habitat suitable for these species (page 4.4-40). In addition, Construction resulting from implementation of the General Plan could disturb active bird nests in and near a construction area, potentially resulting in nest abandonment by the adults and mortality of chicks and eggs (page 4.4-40). Finally, annual grassland and agricultural habitat important foraging grounds for some species (e.g., Swainson’s hawk) would be removed (page 4.4-40). ► Pallid bat: Implementing the General Plan would allow development that could result in the removal of human-made structures that may support bat roosts (page 4.4-40). If these structures are used by bats as a day roost, hibernation roost, or maternity colony roost, implementation of General Plan could result in injury and mortality (page 4.4-40).

The 2035 General Plan (and the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) includes multiple goals and policies to reduce impacts to wildlife species including: Goal 7.B Maintain and Protect Biological Resources, Policy 7.B.1 Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, Policy 7.B.2 Sensitive Habitat Types, Policy 7.B.3 Special-Status Species, Policy 7.B.5 Open Space for Conservation, Policy 7.B.6. Open Space Buffer, Policy 7.B.7 Woodland Regional Park, Policy 7.B.8 Native and Compatible Non-Native Plant Species, Policy 7.B.9. Tree Canopy, Policy 7.B.10. Urban Forest Management Plan, and Policy 7.B.11 Sensitive Site Planning (pages 4.4-42 and 4.4-43). Furthermore, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR included the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts on habitat for special-status wildlife Species and potential direct take of individuals:
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a – Policy 7.B.6, Open Space Buffer, was amended to include “existing wildlife and habitat values” between County Roads 27 and 29.
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a – Policy 7.B.8, Native and Compatible Non-Native Plant Species, was amended to include benefits for native wildlife and ensure that a variety of plants suited to the region are maintained. ► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4.1a. ► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4.1b.

With implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced because these provisions would preserve the majority of sensitive habitats (e.g., alkali prairie and vernal pools) that could support special-status wildlife within the Open Space land use designation, would require development projects to identify and avoid special-status wildlife or provide compensation for loss of habitat (page 4.4-44). Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (page 4.4-44).

PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project has the potential to result in direct or indirect adverse effects on special-status wildlife species, if they are present during temporary construction activities, or their habitat, if present along utility extension alignments. Specific species are discussed below, as was done in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, based on the information contained in Updates to the Environmental Setting section for the Bayer and Clark Pacific utility extension alignments and other potential commercial facility alignments. The proposed project would continue to implement the 2035 General Plan multiple goals and policies as identified and evaluated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR to reduce impacts to special-status wildlife species, including the following:

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-37 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources Goal 7.B Maintain and Protect Biological Resources, Policy 7.B.1 Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, Policy 7.B.2 Sensitive Habitat Types, Policy 7.B.3 Special-Status Species, Policy 7.B.5 Open Space for Conservation, Policy 7.B.6. Open Space Buffer, Policy 7.B.7 Woodland Regional Park, Policy 7.B.8 Native and Compatible Non-Native Plant Species, Policy 7.B.9. Tree Canopy, Policy 7.B.10. Urban Forest Management Plan, and Policy 7.B.11 Sensitive Site Planning (pages 4.4-42 and 4.4-43). Where appropriate, Mitigation Measures from the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the Yolo HCP/NCCP EIS/EIR Appendix C (contained in Appendix E of this SEIR), or other specific mitigation measures are incorporated for the Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments and/or other potential commercial facility alignments to avoid, reduce, or minimize potential impacts of the proposed project on habitat and special-status species. ► Valley elderberry longhorn beetle: Suitable blue elderberry habitat for VELB does not exist within or adjacent to the Bayer utility extension alignment. Suitable habitat for VELB does exist within the existing leach field of Clark Pacific; however, signs of VELB activity on the existing blue elderberry shrubs were not observed. Furthermore, the proposed project would not result in disturbance of the leach field. Therefore, construction of the Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments would not result in a substantial loss or degradation of habitat for this special-status wildlife species. There is Yolo HCP/NCCP modeled VELB habitat within one mile of the existing ULL, and the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified that VELB could occur in areas where suitable habitat is present, which includes dense riparian habitat (Table 4.3-2, Table 4.3-3 and Table 4.3-5). As described in Section 3.3.2, it is unknown if other existing commercial facilities would pursue extending utilities within one mile of the existing ULL given the decision to extend utilities represents a cost and is a unique and individual business decision influenced by multiple factors.

Most of the area within one mile of the existing ULL is cultivated lands, agricultural lands, or other agriculture/semiagricultural and incidental to agricultural lands. These areas would generally have a low potential for suitable VELB habitat. There are some existing businesses to the south of Woodland in general proximity to Willow Slough and the existing Woodland Regional Park. This area has riparian habitat and is permanently preserved under conservation easements (City of Woodland Preserve and Spring Lake Alkali Sink Preserve). The proposed project would not develop lands or disturb areas within these preserved locations; therefore, the proposed project would not impact VELB habitat if it occurred within the riparian areas along Willow Slough. Nonetheless, given the modeled VELB habitat and consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a, Implementation Program Biological Resources 1, project applicants will be required to implement Mitigation Measure 4.4.2d – Implement Mitigation Measure

4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures; Mitigation Measure 4.4-2e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities; and, Mitigation Measure 4.4-2h, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM12, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle to reduce potential significant construction impacts on habitat or this special-status species.
► Crotch’s bumble bee: Crotch’s bumble bee was not designated as a special-status species at the time of the preparation or certification of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. According to Bumble Bee Watch there have been no records of Crotch’s bumble bee within or around the City (Bumble Bee Watch, n.d.). The open grassland and shrubs adjacent to the Bayer and Clark Pacific utility extension alignments present marginally suitable habitats for this species. The habitat is marginal given the level of disturbance and the general lack of wildflowers that the species prefer. Given the distances the species travel to forage and the fact that the bumble bees nest underground, there could be direct but temporary construction effects, if the species are present within either of the utility extension alignments. Furthermore, there may be suitable foraging or

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-38 Draft SEIR nesting habitat for this species within one mile of the existing ULL. Therefore, project applicants will be required to implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-2d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Mitigation Measure 4.4-2h Crotch’s to reduce potentially significant construction impacts on habitat or this special-status species. ► Monarch Butterfly: Monarch Butterfly was not designated as a special-status species at the time of the preparation or certification of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Suitable habitat for this special-status species was not identified within the Bayer or Clark Pacific utility extension alignments and therefore construction of the utilities extension alignments would not result in substantial loss or degradation of habitat for this special-status wildlife species. Most of the area within one mile of the existing ULL is cultivated lands, agricultural lands, or other agriculture/semiagricultural and incidental to agricultural lands. These areas generally have a low potential for Monarch Butterfly habitat; however, milkweed can exist in disturbed areas.

Consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a, Implementation Program Biological Resources 1, project applicants will be required to implement Mitigation Measure 4.4.2d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Mitigation Measure 4.4-2e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo County HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities, to reduce potentially significant construction impacts on habitat or this specials-status species.
► Vernal Pool Branchiopods: Vernal pools were not observed during the field survey either within or adjacent to the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment or the Bayer utility extension alignment. Construction of the Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments would not result in a substantial loss or degradation of habitat for this special-status wildlife species or direct impacts to individual branchiopods. As described in Section 3.3.2, it is unknown if other existing commercial facilities would pursue extending utilities within one mile of the existing ULL given the decision to extend utilities represents a cost and is a unique and individual business decision influenced by multiple factors. Most of the area within one mile of the existing ULL is cultivated lands, agricultural lands, or other agriculture/semiagricultural and incidental to agricultural lands.

These areas generally have a low potential for suitable vernal pool branchiopods habitat. There are documented vernal pools in the southeastern corner of the City limits and within one mile of the ULL in the Alkali Sink Preserve just east of the Woodland Regional Park and in the Woodland Regional Park. The proposed project would not involve development in the preserve or the Woodland Regional Park. If existing businesses located in the southeast within one-mile of the existing ULL extended utilities, they would do so along existing roads and the public right of way to connect to existing utilities and would likely avoid any potential vernal pool habitat and therefore construction of utility extension alignments would not result in a substantial loss or degradation of habitat for this special-status wildlife species. Consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a, Implementation Program Biological Resources 1, project applicants will be required to implement the following mitigation measures for other special-status species that would also benefit vernal pool branchiopods: Mitigation Measure 4.4.2d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures; Mitigation Measure 4.4-2e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo County HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities.
► California Tiger Salamander: The Bayer and Clark Pacific utility extension alignments do not offer suitable vernal pool or seasonal wetland habitat with surrounding upland habitat suitable for California tiger salamander. There is no Yolo HCP/NCCP modeled habitat for California Tiger Salamander within or adjacent

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-39 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources to the two utility extension alignments. Construction of the Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments would not result in a substantial loss or degradation of habitat for this special-status wildlife species or direct impacts to individual California tiger salamanders. There is no Yolo HCP/NCCP modeled California tiger salamander habitat within one mile of the existing ULL (Table 4.3-3). There are documented vernal pools in the southeastern corner of the City limits and within one mile of the ULL in the Alkali Sink Preserve just east of the Woodland Regional Park and in the Woodland Regional Park. The proposed project would not involve development in the preserve or the Woodland Regional Park. If existing commercial facilities located in the southeast within one mile of the existing ULL extended utilities, they would do so along existing roads and the public right of way to connect to existing utilities and would likely avoid any suitable vernal pool or upland habitat; therefore, construction of utility extension alignments would not result in a substantial loss or degradation of habitat for this special-status wildlife species. California tiger salamanders are unlikely to occur along utility extension alignments in unsuitable habitat but may pass through the work area during overland travel if construction of utility extension alignments occurs adjacent to suitable habitat (e.g., habitat in the Alkali Sink Preserve). Direct impacts to California tiger salamanders could occur if individuals are physically harmed by construction vehicles or equipment. Consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a, Implementation Program Biological Resources 1, project applicants will be required to implement the following mitigation measures for other special-status species that would also benefit California tiger salamanders: Mitigation Measure 4.4.2d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures; Mitigation Measure 4.4-2e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo County HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities. Implementation of these measures, which include preconstruction surveys, equipment inspection, and covering trenches and holes, would avoid or minimize potential direct impacts to California tiger salamanders in the unlikely event they pass through the work area during construction activities. ► Northwestern Pond Turtle: The retention ponds at Bayer and Clark Pacific are artificially constructed and lack a hydrologic connection to any natural drainage, stream, or wetland. These features are generally considered of low habitat value for the northwestern pond turtle, and no suitable upland or aquatic habitat for the species is present in their vicinity. There is no Yolo HCP/NCCP modeled habitat for Northwestern Pond turtle associated with the Clark Pacific or Bayer utility extension alignments (Table 4.3-3 in this SEIR).

Construction of the Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments would not result in substantial loss or degradation of northwestern pond turtle habitat or direct impacts to individual northwestern pond turtles.

There is Yolo HCP/NCCP modeled northwestern pond turtle habitat within one-mile of the existing ULL and the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified that northwestern pond turtle could occur in areas where suitable habitat is present, which includes permanent and nearly permanent waters canals/ditches with open bank areas, emergent vegetation, and logs or boulders and upland areas within 325 feet of suitable aquatic habitat (Table 4.3-2, Table 4.3-3 and Table 4.3-5 in this SEIR). As described in Section 3.3.2, it is unknown if other existing commercial facilities would pursue extending utilities within one mile of the existing ULL given the decision to extend utilities represents a cost and is a unique and individual business decision influenced by multiple factors. Most of the area within one mile of the existing ULL is cultivated lands, agricultural lands, or other agriculture/semiagricultural and incidental to agricultural lands. These areas generally have a low potential for suitable northwestern pond turtle habitat. There are some existing businesses to the south of Woodland in general proximity to Willow Slough and the existing Woodland Regional Park, which has riparian habitat and are permanently preserved under conservation easements (City of Woodland Preserve and Spring Lake Alkali Sink Preserve). The proposed project would not develop lands

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-40 Draft SEIR or disturb areas within these preserved locations; therefore, the proposed project would not impact northwestern pond turtle habitat if it occurred along Willow Slough. Northwestern pond turtles are unlikely to occur along utility extension alignments in unsuitable habitat but may pass through the work area during overland travel if construction of utility extension alignments occurs adjacent to suitable habitat (e.g., City of Woodland Preserve). Direct impacts to northwestern pond turtle could occur if individuals are physically harmed by construction vehicles or equipment. Given the modeled northwestern pond turtle habitat within one mile of the ULL and consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a, Implementation Program Biological Resources 1, project applicants will be required to implement the following mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant construction impacts on habitat or this specials-status species: Mitigation Measure 4.4.1a, Implementation Program Biological Resources 1, Mitigation Measure 4.4.2d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures; Mitigation Measure 4.4-2e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities; and, Mitigation Measure 4.4-2i, Yolo County HCP/NCCP AMM14, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Northwestern Pond Turtle.

Implementation of these measures, which include preconstruction surveys, equipment inspection, and covering trenches and holes, would avoid or minimize potential direct impacts to northwestern pond turtle in the unlikely event they pass through the work area during construction activities. ► Western Spadefoot: This species was not designated as special status at the time of the preparation or certification of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The retention ponds at Bayer and Clark Pacific are artificially constructed and lack a hydrologic connection to any natural drainage, stream, or wetland. These features are generally considered of low habitat value for western spadefoot, and no suitable upland or aquatic habitat for the species is present in their vicinity. Construction of the Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments would not result in substantial loss or degradation of western spadefoot habitat or direct impacts to the species. As described in Section 3.3.2, it is unknown if other existing commercial facilities would pursue extending utilities within one mile of the existing ULL given the decision to extend utilities represents a cost and is a unique and individual business decision influenced by multiple factors. Most of the area within one mile of the existing ULL is cultivated lands, agricultural lands, or other agriculture/semiagricultural and incidental to agricultural lands. These areas would generally have a low potential for suitable western spadefoot habitat. Western spadefoot occur in shallow streams with riffles and seasonal wetlands, such as vernal pools in annual grasslands and oak woodlands (Table 4.3-2 and Table 4.3-5) and this type of habitat is generally present in the southeastern part of the ULL around Woodland Regional Park. The proposed project would not involve development in the preserve or the Woodland Regional Park. If existing businesses located in the southeast within one-mile of the existing ULL extended utilities, they would do so along existing roads and the public right of way to connect to existing utilities and would likely avoid any potential habitat; therefore, construction of utility extension alignments would not result in a substantial loss or degradation of habitat for this special-status wildlife species. Western spadefoot are unlikely to occur along utility extension alignments in unsuitable habitat but may pass through the work area during overland travel if construction of utility extension alignments occurs adjacent to suitable habitat (e.g., habitat around Woodland Regional Park).

Direct impacts to western spadefoot could occur if individuals are physically harmed by construction vehicles or equipment. Consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a, Implementation Program Biological Resources 1, project applicants will be required to implement the following mitigation measures for other special-status species that would also benefit western spadefoot:

Mitigation Measure 4.4.2d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-41 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources Measures; Mitigation Measure 4.4-2e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo County HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities. Implementation of these measures, which include preconstruction surveys, equipment inspection, and covering trenches and holes, would avoid or minimize potential direct impacts to western spadefoot in the unlikely event they pass through the work area during construction activities.
► Giant Garter Snake: The retention ponds at Bayer and Clark Pacific are artificially constructed and lack a hydrologic connection to any natural drainage, stream, or wetland. These features are generally considered of low habitat value for giant garter snake, which depends on more consistent hydrology and well-developed wetland structure to complete their life cycles. Furthermore, there is no Yolo HCP/NCCP modeled habitat for giant garter snake associated with the Clark Pacific or Bayer utility extension alignments (Table 4.3-3).

Construction of the Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments would not result in substantial loss or degradation of giant garter snake habitat or direct impacts to individual giant garter snakes. As described in Section 3.3.2, it is unknown if other existing commercial facilities would pursue extending utilities within one mile of the existing ULL given the decision to extend utilities represents a cost and is a unique and individual business decision influenced by multiple factors. Most of the area within one mile of the existing ULL is cultivated lands, agricultural lands, or other agriculture/semiagricultural and incidental to agricultural lands.

These areas generally have a low potential for suitable giant garter snake habitat. There is Yolo HCP/NCCP modeled giant garter snake habitat within one-mile of the existing ULL and the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified that giant garter snake could occur in areas where suitable habitat is present, which includes freshwater marsh, and slow moving streams, ditches, or canals (Table 4.3-2 and Table 4.3-5 in this SEIR).

There are some existing businesses to the south of Woodland in general proximity to Willow Slough and the existing Woodland Regional Park, which has freshwater marsh habitat and are permanently preserved under conservation easements (City of Woodland Preserve and Spring Lake Alkali Sink Preserve). The proposed project would not develop lands or disturb areas within these preserved locations; therefore, the proposed project would not impact giant garter snake habitat if it occurred along Willow Slough. Giant garter snake are unlikely to occur along potential utility extension alignments in unsuitable habitat but may pass through the work area during overland travel if construction of utility extension alignments occurs adjacent to suitable habitat (e.g., habitat around the City of Woodland Preserve). Direct impacts to giant garter snake could occur if individuals are physically harmed by construction vehicles or equipment. Given the modeled habitat within one mile of the ULL and consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a, Implementation Program Biological Resources 1, project applicants will be required to implement the following mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant construction impacts on habitat or this specials-status species: Mitigation Measure 4.4.2d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures; Mitigation Measure 4.4-2e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d:

Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities; Mitigation Measure 4.4- 2f – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM10, Avoid and Minimize Effects on Wetlands and Waters; and, Mitigation Measure 4.4-2j, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM15, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Giant Garter Snake. Implementation of these measures, which include preconstruction surveys, equipment inspection, and covering trenches and holes, would avoid or minimize potential direct impacts to giant garter snake in the unlikely event they pass through the work area during construction activities.
► Special-status and migratory birds. There is suitable nesting and foraging habitat within and adjacent to the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment and the Bayer utility extension alignment for a wide variety of

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-42 Draft SEIR special status and migratory birds (Table 4.3-1, Table 4.3-2 and Table 4.3-5). In addition, there is Yolo HCP/NCCP modeled habitat for Swainson’s Hawk and white-tailed Kite associated with the Clark Pacific or Bayer utility extension alignments and within one mile of the existing ULL (Table 4.3-3). Construction is anticipated to occur May through November and therefore could result in indirect and temporary construction impacts associated with noise, presence of construction workers and equipment on nesting special-status and migratory birds, including Swainson’s Hawk, White-tailed Kite, least Bell’s vireo, and tricolored blackbird, should those birds be present. Given the presence of suitable migratory bird and special-status bird habitat and the potential presence for the special-status bird species habitat within one mile of the existing ULL and consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a, Implementation Program Biological Resources 1, project applicants will be required to implement the following mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant construction impacts on habitat or special-status or migratory bird species:

Mitigation Measure 4.4.2d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures; Mitigation Measure 4.4-2e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities; Mitigation Measure 4.4-2f – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM10, Avoid and Minimize Effects on Wetlands and Waters; Mitigation Measure 4.4-2k, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM16, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Swainson’s Hawk and White-Tailed Kite; Mitigation Measure 4.4-2l, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM19, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Least Bell’s vireo; and Mitigation Measure 4.4-2m, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM21, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Tricolored Blackbird. ► Western Burrowing Owl: There is suitable nesting and foraging habitat for western burrowing owl associated with the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment and the Bayer utility extension alignment (Table

4.3-5). In addition, there is Yolo HCP/NCCP modeled habitat for western burrowing owl associated with the Clark Pacific utility extension alignments and within one mile of the existing ULL (Table 4.3-3) and 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified that western burrowing owl could occur in areas where suitable habitat is present, which includes grasslands, agricultural lands, shrublands, with existing ground squirrel burrows and friable soils (Table 4.3-5). Construction could result in indirect and temporary construction impacts associated with noise, presence of construction workers and equipment if burrows are occupied or the species is present foraging. In addition, impacts could occur if burrows are occupied adjacent to the retention pond at Bayer and the pond is filled in. As described in Section 3.3.2, it is unknown if other existing commercial facilities would pursue extending utilities within one mile of the existing ULL given the decision to extend utilities represents a cost and is a unique and individual business decision influenced by multiple factors.

Most of the area within one mile of the existing ULL is cultivated lands, agricultural lands, or other agriculture/semiagricultural and incidental to agricultural lands. These areas generally support suitable western burrowing owl habitat. Given the presence of suitable burrowing owl habitat and the potential presence for the species within one mile of the existing ULL and consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a, Implementation Program Biological Resources 1, project applicants will be required to implement the following mitigation measures reduce potentially significant construction impacts on habitat or this special-status species: Mitigation Measure 4.4.2d – Implement Mitigation Measure

4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures; Mitigation Measure 4.4-2e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities; and Mitigation Measure 4.4-2n, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM18, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Western Burrowing Owl.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-43 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources ► Pallid bat: There is suitable roosting habitat for the pallid bat associated with the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment and the Bayer utility extension alignment (Table 4.3-5). The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified that the pallid bat could occur in areas where suitable habitat is present, which includes roosting in rock crevices, oak hollows, bridges, or buildings (Table 4.3-5). Given the presence of suitable rooting habitat and the potential presence for the species within one mile of the existing ULL and consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a, Implementation Program Biological Resources 1, project applicants will be required to implement the following mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant construction impacts on habitat or this special-status species Mitigation Measure 4.4.2d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures; Mitigation Measure 4.4-2e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities and Mitigation Measure 4.4-2o, Bat Protection and Roost Avoidance.

The City would evaluate other potential utility extension alignments through the application process and execution of a service agreement to confirm a utility extension could be provided, and confirm consistency with the existing general plan policies, and establish any conditions of approval that may be needed prior to construction. The proposed project would continue to implement the 2035 General Plan multiple goals and policies as identified and evaluated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR to reduce impacts to special-status wildlife species, including the following: Goal 7.B Maintain and Protect Biological Resources, Policy 7.B.1 Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, Policy 7.B.2 Sensitive Habitat Types, Policy

7.B.3 Special-Status Species, Policy 7.B.5 Open Space for Conservation, Policy 7.B.6. Open Space Buffer, Policy

7.B.7 Woodland Regional Park, Policy 7.B.8 Native and Compatible Non-Native Plant Species, Policy 7.B.9.

Tree Canopy, Policy 7.B.10. Urban Forest Management Plan, and Policy 7.B.11 Sensitive Site Planning (pages

4.4-42 and 4.4-43). Furthermore, consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b – Implementation Program Biological Resources 1, and as identified above for special-status species, project applicants will be required to implement the following mitigation measures which incorporated standard best management practices and avoidance and minimization measures, with respect to special-status wildlife species and habitat prior to and during construction.
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a – Implement Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a, Implementation Program Biological Resources 1
► Mitigation Measure 4.4.2d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2f – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM10, Avoid and Minimize Effects on Wetlands and Waters
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2g, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM12, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2h, Perform visual presence surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee and their nests during the active flight season between April and September, in accordance with the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023).If an individual is

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-44 Draft SEIR believed to be identified, the surveyor shall take photographs showing the head, body, and back and send photographs to either Xerces or a qualified bumble bee biologist for species verification. If bumble bee nests are identified, aa minimum 50- foot buffer between construction and documented nest location will be established until the species can be verified either by Xerces or a qualified bumble bee biologist. This buffer distance may need to be increased if it is determined by the qualified biologist to not be sufficient to avoid impacting the species.
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2i, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM14, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Northwestern Pond Turtle
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2j, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM15, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Giant Garter Snake.
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2k, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM16, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Swainson’s Hawk and White-Tailed Kite
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2l, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM19, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on least Bell’s vireo
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2m, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM21, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Tricolored Blackbird
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2n, Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM18, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Western Burrowing Owl
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-2o, Bat Protection and Roost Avoidance: a qualified biologist will conduct a pre- construction bat habitat assessment of all trees and structures within 100 feet of proposed construction areas.

The assessment will identify potential roosting features. If suitable root habitat is present, the biologist shall conduct evening and/or dawn acoustic emergency surveys within 14 days before the start of construction to determine occupancy. If active day or maternity roosts are identified a no-disturbance buffer of at least 100 feet will be established around the roost until it is no longer in use.

Similar to the analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan, these mitigation measures would reduce, avoid, or minimize impacts because they would identify or avoid special-status wildlife species and their habitats during construction of utility extension alignments. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.4-3: Loss and Degradation of Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities

GENERAL PLAN
Changes in land use designations that would occur with implementation of General Plan would allow development in areas that contain ponds and waterways, both natural and manmade, that support small strips of riparian forest habitat (page 4.4-44). While the majority of riparian forest habitat and alkali prairie habitat would be preserved in within the Woodland Regional Park and adjacent City of Woodland Preserve and Spring Lake

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-45 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources Alkali Sink preserve to the southeast of the City of Woodland, development could occur in areas outside the preserves that could result in removal of riparian forest and/or alkali prairie vegetation or further habitat degradation from pollutants transported by urban runoff, changes in vegetation as a result of changes in land use and management practices, and altered site hydrology from the construction of adjacent urban development and roadways (page 4.4-45). The 2035 General Plan (and the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) includes multiple goals and policies to reduce impacts to wildlife species including those summarized under Impact 4.4-2 (pages

4.4-42 to 4.4-43, and 4.4-45 to 4.4-46). Furthermore, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR included the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities:
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-3a – Implement Implementation Program Biological Resources 2 ► Mitigation Measure 4.4-3b – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a ► Mitigation Measure 4.4-3c – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b ► Mitigation Measure 4.4-3d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a With implementation of these changes, impacts would be reduced because these provisions would preserve the majority of sensitive habitats (e.g., alkali prairie and riparian forest) within the Open Space land use designation, and would require development projects to identify and avoid sensitive habitats or provide compensation for loss of habitat (page 4.4-47). Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (page 4.4-47).

PROPOSED PROJECT
The Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments are primarily comprised of common habitat types typically associated with cultivated and active agricultural land (Figure 4.3-1, Figure 4.3-2, Figure 4.3-3 and Figure 4.3-4). There is limited riparian woodland habitat adjacent to the Bayer alignment would not be disturbed by construction of the alignment. There are no riparian or sensitive natural communities identified by the Yolo HCP/NCCP within the Clark Pacific or Bayer utility extension alignments (Figure 4.3-3 and Figure 4.3-4).

Therefore, construction of these utility extension alignments would not result in a substantial loss or degradation of riparian or sensitive natural community habitat. The proposed project would primarily disturb areas along the public right-of-way of existing roads and areas within the footprint of existing commercial facilities in operation prior to November 3, 2026 because any extension of utility alignments must connect to existing utilities, which are typically located along roads and within intersections. It is unknown if any additional existing commercial facilities beyond Clark Pacific and Bayer would pursue extending utilities given the decision to extend utilities represents a cost and is a unique and individual business decision influenced by multiple factors. There are multiple existing businesses located to the west of Woodland or to the north of Woodland and surrounded by active agricultural lands and disturbed cultivated areas, and generally lacking riparian or other sensitive natural communities. There are some existing businesses to the south of Woodland in general proximity to Willow Slough and the existing Woodland Regional Park and Maupin Unit of the Alkali Sink Preserve, which contain riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. However, the proposed project would not develop lands or disturb areas within these preserved locations; therefore, the proposed project would not impact these areas or riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities in these areas. The City would evaluate other potential utility extension alignments through the application process and execution of a service agreement to confirm a utility extension could be provided, and confirm consistency with the existing general plan policies, and establish any conditions of approval that may be needed prior to construction. The proposed project would continue to

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-46 Draft SEIR implement the 2035 General Plan multiple goals and policies as identified and evaluated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, to reduce impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities including those identified in Impact 4.4.-1 and Impact 4.4-2. Furthermore, consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b – Implementation Program Biological Resources 1, project applicants will be required to implement the following standard best management practices and avoidance and minimization measures, some of which are identified in the Yolo HCP/NCCP EIS/EIR Appendix C, which is contained in Appendix F of this SEIR as identified below, with respect to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities prior to and during construction:
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-3d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-3e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-3f – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM10, Avoid and Minimize Effects on Wetlands and Waters
Similar to the analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan, these mitigation measures would reduce, avoid, or minimize impacts because they would identify or avoid riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities during construction of utility extension alignments. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.4-4: Loss and Degradation of Federally Protected Wetlands

GENERAL PLAN
Implementing the General Plan would allow development in areas that currently support, or may support, wetlands and other waters, including vernal pools and other freshwater wetlands, ponds, and drainage canals.

Impacts on wetlands and other waters could occur through habitat conversion, encroachment, routine maintenance, or other activities in the immediate vicinity of waterways and in habitat supporting wetlands (page

4.4-47). Some waters within the Planning Area would be under the jurisdiction of USACE and qualify as waters of the United States due to hydrological connectivity to navigable waters; however, others might be excluded from USACE jurisdiction due to intermittent flow or disconnection, and these would be subject to regulation by the state (Central Valley RWQCB or SWRCB) as waters of the State (page 4.4-47). The 2035 General Plan (and the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) includes multiple goals and policies to reduce impacts to wildlife species including those summarized under Impact 4.4-2 (pages 4.4-42 to 4.4-43, and 4.4-48 to 4.4-49). Furthermore, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR included the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts on wetlands:
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-4a – Implement Implementation Program Biological Resources 3 With implementation of these changes, impacts would be reduced because the majority of wetland and aquatic habitats (e.g., alkali sink and freshwater wetlands) within the Open Space land use designation would be preserved and would require development projects to identify and avoid wetland habitats or provide compensation

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-47 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources resulting in no net loss of habitat functions and values (page 4.4-50). Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (page 4.4-50).

PROPOSED PROJECT
The Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments are primarily comprised of common habitat types typically associated with cultivated and active agricultural land (Table 4.3-1 and, Figure 4.3-1, Figure 4.3-2, Figure 4.3-3 and Figure 4.3-4). There were no aquatic features identified within either utility extension alignment.

The retention pond adjacent to the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment would not be disturbed by the proposed project. The Bayer retention pond would be filled in as part of the proposed project. The Bayer retention pond has no inlet or outlet and retains water from the existing seed processing at Bayer, as needed. Given the existing vegetation and the lack of connectivity to other aquatic features it is likely the retention pond would not be subject to USACE jurisdiction. Furthermore, because the retention pond is artificial and less than one acre it would likely not meet the definition of the waters of the state (SWRCB 2021).

Mitigation Measure 4.4-4a, Implement Implementation Program Biological Resources 3, of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR requires applicants to complete a delineation of waters of the United States according to U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers’ methods, and to submit the completed delineation to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for jurisdictional determination if a project would result in ground disturbance on sites containing waterways or other aquatic habitats. It is likely that the retention pond at Bayer will not meet regulatory definitions of USACE or the Central Valley RWQCB for wetlands, Waters of the U.S., or waters of the State, given its size, lack of connectivity, and characteristics; however, given the requirement of Mitigation Measure

4.4-4a and the presence of the retention pond at Bayer, Bayer will implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-4b, Coordinate with Regulating Agencies, to confirm the need to implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-4a. Mitigation Measure 4.4-4b if a qualified biologist identifies waterways or other aquatic habitats within a utility extension alignment that would be disturbed and to confirm the waterway or other aquatic habitat feature requires a delineation. Bayer would implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-4b prior to filling in the retention pond with soil.

Should jurisdiction be confirmed, Mitigation Measures 4.4-4a, 4.4-4c, 4.4-4d, and 4.4-4e will be implemented to reduce the loss or degradation of wetlands, along with mitigation ratios per the determination by the USACE or the Central Valley RWQCB to compensate for the loss, if the retention pond is deemed jurisdictional.

As described in Section 3.3.2, it is unknown if other existing commercial facilities would pursue extending utilities within one mile of the existing ULL given the decision to extend utilities represents a cost and is a unique and individual business decision influenced by multiple factors. Most of the area within one mile of the existing ULL is cultivated lands, agricultural lands, or other agriculture/semiagricultural and incidental to agricultural lands. Although these areas are highly disturbed, they can support wetland features (Table 4.3-2). Other utility extension alignments could have waterways, other aquatic habitat, or aquatic features that meet jurisdictional criteria that would need to be avoided or potentially mitigated. The City would evaluate other potential utility extension alignments through the application process and execution of a service agreement to confirm a utility extension could be provided, and confirm consistency with the existing general plan policies, and establish any conditions of approval that may be needed prior to construction. Project applicants will implement the following Mitigation Measures to reduce and avoid loss or degradation of wetlands, some of which are identified in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and some of which are identified in the Yolo HCP/NCCP EIS/EIR Appendix C, which is contained in Appendix F of this SEIR:

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-48 Draft SEIR ► Mitigation Measure 4.4-4a – Implement Implementation Program Biological Resources 3 ► Mitigation Measure 4.4-4b – Coordinate with Regulatory Agencies: if a qualified biologist identifies waterways or other aquatic habitats within a utility extension alignment that would be disturbed, applicants will coordinate with the Central Valley RWQCB and USACE. The required coordination with these regulatory agencies will confirm the identified waterway(s) or other aquatic habitat(s) require a delineation and confirm implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-4a. ► Mitigation Measure 4.4-4c – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c, General Avoidance and Minimization Measures
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-4d – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities
► Mitigation Measure 4.4-4e – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e: Yolo HCP/NCCP AMM10, Avoid and Minimize Effects on Wetlands and Waters
Similar to the analysis contained in the 2035 General Plan, these mitigation measures would reduce, avoid, or minimize impacts because they would identify, avoid loss and degradation, or compensate for the loss of federal wetlands during construction of utility extension alignments. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.4-5: Interference with Wildlife Movement Corridors and Nursery Sites

GENERAL PLAN
The City of Woodland is located within the Pacific flyway, which is a major north-south route for migratory birds along western North America. Large numbers of waterfowl and shorebirds may move through the area seasonally and may congregate and forage in different habitats (page 4.4-50). However, implementation of the General Plan would not create a barrier to movement of migratory species or alter the character of existing habitat available to migrating birds such that it would no longer function as a migratory corridor because there still would be abundant agricultural habitat of equal or better value to migrating birds surrounding the Planning Area and this agricultural habitat, along with Cache Creek, Willow Slough, and the Yolo Bypass would continue to support the needs of migratory birds and provide wildlife movement opportunities for other native resident or migratory wildlife species in the area (page 4.4-50). The Planning Area does not provide an important connection between any areas of natural habitat that would otherwise be isolated, and the Planning Area is not located within any of the ecological corridors identified in the Yolo HCP/NCCP as important to maintaining connectivity between communities, habitat patches, species populations, or the Yolo HCP/NCCP proposed reserve system (pages 4.4- 50 and 4.4-51). No native wildlife nursery sites have been identified in the Planning Area (page 4.4-51).

Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites and impacts would be less than significant (page 4.4-51).

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-49 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources

PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project would result in the construction of underground utility pipelines primarily within the right- of-way of existing roads and would not interfere with the Pacific Flyway or existing agricultural habitat, Willow Slough or the Yolo Bypass areas that might be regularly used by wildlife. Once constructed the pipelines would not interfere with wildlife movement. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.4-6: Conflict with Local Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources

GENERAL PLAN
Implementing the General Plan would allow development in areas containing street trees, heritage trees, landmark trees, specimen trees, or other trees protected under the City of Woodland Tree Ordinance (page 4.4-52). The General Plan (and 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR) reference a number of policies that are meant to protect trees including: Policy 7.B.9, Tree Canopy; Policy 7.B.10, Urban Forest Management Plan; and Policy 7.B.11 Sensitive Site Planning (page 4.4-53). Implementation of the General Plan and City of Woodland Tree Ordinance would result in impacts that are less than significant on protected trees.

PROPOSED PROJECT
The City updated and amended the Tree ordinance after the certification and approval of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR pursuant to Policies 7B.9 and 7.B.10 of the 2035 General Plan. The tree ordinance identifies measures to protect large trees. There are no large trees with driplines within or immediately adjacent to the Bayer utility extension alignment construction area (Appendix E). There are a number of large valley oak trees to the south side of Road 18C within or immediately adjacent to the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment construction area (Appendix E). The dripline of these trees could be affected by excavation of a utility trench up to a depth of eight feet on the south side of the road if the utility trench is too close to the dripline of the trees. The north side of Road 18C has no large valley oak trees within the construction area, is regularly maintained (the adjacent annual grasslands are regularly mowed) and only one large eucalyptus tree on the north side of the intersection of Road 18C and Road 101. Therefore, the proposed project would be able to avoid the existing large valley oaks on the south side of Road 18C by locating the utility extension alignment either fully on the north side Road 18C or within Road 18C and out of the dripline of the existing trees. In addition, the City would require compliance with the updated Tree Ordinance (see Section 4.3.1 of this SEIR) as conditions of approval for the project, including:
► consultation and consent of the Community Development Director will occur prior to ground disturbance ► tree wells may be used when advisable
► excavation adjacent to any heritage oak tree shall not be permitted where material damage to the root system may result, unless approved by an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist ► excavation within an oak tree dripline when approved by the City, may only be performed by a contractor that has an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist on staff and based on a plan prepared by

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Biological Resources 4.3-50 Draft SEIR consulting International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist that has been submitted to and approved by the City in advance
There are numerous large trees along existing roads within one mile of the existing ULL. Given that the pipelines are relatively small in diameter, the limited construction footprint width of 25 feet, and the difficulty of constructing pipeline trenches in tree roots, if other utility extension alignments are pursued by existing commercial facilities in operation prior to November 3, 2026 within one mile of the existing ULL large trees would be avoided if large trees exist along other alignments. The City would evaluate other potential utility extension alignments through the application process and execution of a service agreement to confirm the utility extensions could be provided, confirm consistency with the existing tree ordinance, and establish any conditions of approval that may be needed prior to construction, such as the requirements identified in the updated tree ordinance.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.4-7: Conflict with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan Natural Community Conservation Plan

GENERAL PLAN
The Yolo HCP/NCCP was not adopted at the time of the preparation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 4.4-55). However, the 2035 General Plan includes specific policies to maintain consistency with the Yolo HCP/NCCP and to fully implement the plan once adopted (page 4.4-55). The General Plan was designed for consistency with the current working draft of the proposed Yolo HCP/NCCP and has designated the Woodland Regional Park and parcels to the north as Open Space land for conservation of sensitive habitat and special-status plants known to occur there (page 4.4-55). These are the only lands within the Planning Area that are identified in the proposed Yolo HCP/NCCP as a part of the future reserves system (page 4.4-55). Mitigation Measures 4.4-7a – Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a, Mitigation Measure 4.4-7b – Implement of Mitigation Measure

4.4-1b, and Mitigation Measure 4.4-7c – Implement Mitigation Measure 4.-2a cited in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR would reduce impacts to less than significant because these provisions would ensure that growth projected under the Proposed Project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the Yolo HCP/NCCP because it would preserve habitat identified for preservation under the current Draft Yolo HCP/NCCP and would require project applicants to participate in the Plan, if adopted, to mitigate impacts on covered species and habitats consistent with the Yolo HCP/NCCP conservation strategy (page 4.4-55). Therefore, impacts were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (page 4.4-55).

PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project would be implemented in accordance with incorporation of avoidance and minimization measures that are part of the Yolo HCP/NCCP. Through payment of Yolo HCP/NCCP fees or equivalent mitigation, the proposed project would contribute to the Yolo HCP/NCCP’s conservation strategy, thereby benefiting the following covered species evaluated in this SEIR: Palmate-bracted bird’s beak, VELB, northwestern pond turtle, Swainson’s hawk, White-tailed kit, Western burrowing owl, Least Bell’s vireo, and Tricolored blackbird. Therefore, with incorporation of Yolo HCP/NCCP fees or equivalent mitigation and

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.3-51 Impact Analysis – Biological Resources adherence to other Yolo HCP/NCCP avoidance and minimization measures, the proposed project would not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan/natural community conservation plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Impact 4.4-8: Substantial Reduction in the Habitat of a Fish or Wildlife Species, Cause a Fish or Wildlife Population to Drop Below Self-Sustaining Levels, Eliminate a Plant or Animal Community, or Substantially Reduce the Number or Restrict the Range of an Endangered, Rare, or Threatened Species

GENERAL PLAN
The majority of the Planning Area consists of developed and agricultural land that provides limited habitat values to most species (page 4.4-57). There is a limited amount of natural habitat in the Planning Area to support native species (page 4.4-57). The General Plan Land Use Designations would ensure the majority of known occupied and potential habitat for special-status plants and wildlife that currently exists within the Planning Area would remain in open space land uses for conservation of these species (page 4.4-57). The General Plan goals and policies cited in Impact 4.4-2, Impact 4.4-3, Impact 4.4-6, and Impact 4.4-6 reduce potential impacts on wildlife species and habitat (page 4.4-58). Impacts would be less than significant (page 4.4-58).

PROPOSED PROJECT
As demonstrated in Impact 4.4-1 through Impact 4.4-7, the proposed project would continue to implement the policies of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and implement mitigation measures where required to avoid, reduce or minimize impacts on species. The proposed project would not result in a substantial reduction in the habitat of a fish or wildlife Species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.4-1 Impact Analysis – Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy

4.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY
Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute cumulatively to the significant cumulative impact of global climate change. Cumulative emissions from many projects and activities affect global GHG concentrations and the climate system. GHG emissions disperse broadly and are a global concern because of their relatively long atmospheric lifetimes.

Therefore, the total amount and types of GHG emissions, regardless of their location, have the most significant effect on climate change globally.

Section 4.5, “Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy,” of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.5-1 to 4.5-66) described existing GHG emissions and energy usage, provided a summary of applicable regulations, analyzed the potential short-term construction and long-term operational GHG emissions and energy impacts from implementation of the City’s General Plan, and identified mitigation measures to reduce significant GHG emissions impacts, where applicable. That information is hereby incorporated by reference into this SEIR.

This section provides updated information related to the environmental setting, the regulatory setting, and potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to the proposed project, where applicable.

4.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

REGULATORY SETTING
The regulatory setting in the General Plan EIR was presented on pages 4.5-12 to 4.5-15. The regulatory setting is updated in the material that follows. The information provided below does not lead to a new impact or increase in severity of any impact in relation to the proposed project.

UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
Since certification of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, several state regulations have been adopted related to statewide GHG emissions reductions across all sectors with targets for the years 2030 and beyond. Executive Order (EO) B-30-15 established a statewide GHG emissions reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, which was codified by the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 32 in 2016. For the post-2030 period, EO B-55-18 established a new statewide goal to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. Assembly Bill (AB) 1279, signed in 2022, codified EO B- 55-18 and requires that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045.

Additionally, CARB is required to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan at least once every five years, with the most recent update completed in 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan (CARB 2022) identifies an action to have 25 percent of energy demand from construction equipment electrified by 2030 and 75 percent by 2045; however, this action is meant to be achieved on a statewide level, not for individual construction projects. While updated statewide GHG reductions targets and updates to the Scoping Plan have been adopted since the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR was certified, none of those changes would lead to a new impact or increase in severity of any impact in relation to the proposed project.

Yolo County’s 2030 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP) was adopted in December 2024; this plan is not a qualified GHG reduction plan under CEQA Guidelines §15183.5. The GHG reduction measures and strategies

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy 4.4-2 Draft SEIR in the Yolo County CAAP are generally not applicable to the activities associated with the proposed project, focused on reducing operational emissions through decarbonization, increasing energy efficiency, optimizing water use, minimizing waste, and achieving carbon sequestration. Furthermore, while construction activities associated with the proposed project would temporarily result in the generation of exhaust GHG emissions within unincorporated areas of Yolo County, the proposed project would not affect land uses and associated long-term operational emissions assumptions applicable to Yolo County’s CAAP For these reasons, the Yolo County CAAP is not applicable to the proposed project and is not evaluated for the purposes of this SEIR analysis.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is described in 2035 General Plan and CAP (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.5-2 to 4.5-7), is current as it relates to potential effects attributable to the proposed project, and is hereby incorporated by reference. The setting describes the greenhouse effect, GHG sources and sectors, summarizes GHG emissions inventories for California and the City of Woodland, and summarizes energy consumption within the Pacific Gas & Electric service territory. As described in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, page 4.5-2), prominent GHGs contributing to the earth’s greenhouse effect are CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and high-global warming potential (high-GWP)12 GHGs. The concept of CO2-equivalents (CO2e) is used to account for the different potentials of GHGs to absorb infrared radiation and is based on the global warming potential (GWP) of a GHG. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, page 4.5-1) also describes that emissions of GHGs have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute cumulatively to global climate change. Cumulative emissions from many projects and activities affect global GHG concentrations and the climate system. Unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs that tend to have more localized or regional impacts, GHG emissions tend to disperse more broadly and are more of a global concern because of their relatively longer atmospheric lifetimes compared to air quality emissions.

Therefore, the total amount and types of GHG emissions, regardless of their location, have the most significant effect on climate change globally.

UPDATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
State and local GHG emissions inventories and energy consumption data are updated periodically, typically annually or every few years. The environmental setting information presented in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR related to existing GHG emissions and energy consumption is sufficient to inform the analysis for the proposed project and any incremental change would not lead to a new impact or increase in severity of an existing impact in relation to the proposed project.

4.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds for evaluating the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and are the same as those used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR13. These

12 Examples of high-GWP GHGs are hydrofluorocarbons used in refrigerants. 13 Following certification of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, VI. “Energy” was added to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines in 2019; this revision updated the impact questions previously included in Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines of “develop land uses and patterns that cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary energy consumption” and “require or result in the construction of new energy production and/or transmission facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects”. These changes do not substantively change the approach to analysis between that applied to the 2035 General Plan EIR and that presented in this SEIR evaluation of potential energy impacts.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.4-3 Impact Analysis – Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy thresholds are used to evaluate potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, with a focus on impacts beyond those addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The proposed project would be considered to have a significant effect if it would result in any of the conditions listed below.
► generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
► conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases; or
► result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or ► conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The impact numbering in the section below corresponds to those numbers used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR for ease of reference.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.5-1: Generation of GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment
The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Impact 4.5-1 (pages 4.5-20 to 4.5-41) discusses potential impacts related to generation of GHG emissions from implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP and is incorporated by reference. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR estimates the maximum annual and total GHG emissions from development throughout the Planning Area anticipated under the 2035 General Plan, in addition to short-term emissions associated with equipment upgrades, renewable energy facility installations, energy efficiency building upgrades, tree planting, and other measures included in the City’s 2035 CAP. Maximum annual emissions (operations plus amortized annual construction emissions) and the projected service population within the Planning Area for the year 2035 were used to estimate the GHG efficiency rate for implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found that emissions associated with implementation of the 2035 General Plan would exceed the GHG efficiency rate and the impact would be cumulatively considerable. General Plan Policy 2.C.2 requires new development to be consistent with the objectives and targets of the City’s CAP. Ultimately, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that implementation of the CAP would achieve local annual reductions that, when combined with estimated future anticipated statewide reductions, would achieve a GHG efficiency per service population that would contribute a fair share of the emissions reductions required by the State’s emissions reductions consistent with AB 32, EO B- 30-15 (since signed into law via SB 32), and Executive Order S-3-05 emissions reductions, based on the contemplated land use within the 2035 General Plan, and this impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.

CEQA Guidelines 15183.5(b) states “a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements in a previously adopted plan or mitigation program under specified circumstances.” The City adopted its CAP in 2017, which can be relied on for CEQA review of subsequent plans and projects that are consistent with the GHG reduction

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy 4.4-4 Draft SEIR strategies and targets in the CAP. According to the CAP, if a project is consistent with the General Plan, is not exempt from CEQA, falls within the assumptions of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, and is consistent with the CAP, GHG-related impacts associated with the project are determined to be less than significant, and further CEQA analysis for the area of impact is generally not required. The CAP describes that to be determined consistent with the CAP, a project must demonstrate that it is included in the growth assumptions upon which the CAP modeling is based and that it incorporates applicable strategies and measures from the CAP as binding and enforceable components of the project.

The proposed project would construct and operate utility extensions to existing commercial facilities up to one mile beyond the existing ULL, and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026 and, therefore, would not alter the existing land use designations, as the facilities must be existing. Additionally, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan policies, including Policy 5.G.5, “Recycled Water,” by expanding the recycled water system through allowing the provision of recycled water service to existing commercial facilities within one mile of the ULL. Implementation of the proposed project would not introduce new development beyond what was analyzed and assumed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and therefore would be within the growth assumptions upon which the CAP modeling is based . Most of the strategies in the CAP are not applicable, as the proposed project would not result in new long-term emissions sources, and only those strategies that are applicable are discussed herein, which is: CAP Strategy MO-3, “Increased Energy Efficiency and Use of Renewable Energy”. CAP Strategy MO-3 seeks to reduce GHG emissions associated with the City’s municipal operations through a variety of actions, including through reduced reliance on potable water supply by expanding the distribution and use of recycled water to industrial uses and landscaped areas. Operation of the proposed project would include provision of recycled wastewater services to Clark Pacific, which would support CAP Strategy MO-3. Therefore, because the proposed project would not induce growth beyond the growth assumptions upon which the CAP is based and would be consistent with applicable CAP strategies, the proposed project is consistent with the CAP.

In order to demonstrate project-level compliance relevant to GHG emissions and climate change impacts, in accordance with the CAP and pursuant to Section 15064.4(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, the level of GHG emissions that would result from implementation of the proposed project were estimated. The proposed project would temporarily generate construction GHG emissions associated with extension of the utilities to Bayer and Clark Pacific and minimal onsite activities to decommission existing groundwater and wastewater facilities.

Construction-related GHG emissions would be generated primarily from exhaust emissions associated with off- road construction equipment, construction worker commutes, and vendor and haul truck trips, and would cease following construction of the proposed project. Construction-related GHG emissions were modeled using the same methods and assumptions as those described in Section 4.2, “Air Quality” of this SEIR. In addition to criteria air pollutants, CalEEMod also estimates GHG emissions associated with construction activities. Proposed project construction GHG emissions associated with utility extensions to Bayer and Clark Pacific would be approximately 108 metric tons (MT) CO2e and 73 MT CO2e, respectively14. These levels of GHG emissions would be similar to those that could occur if other existing commercial facilities located up to one mile beyond the existing ULL, and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026, extend utilities under the proposed project.

Operation of the utility extensions to provide water and wastewater services to Bayer and Clark Pacific is within the operational capacity of the City’s water distribution and wastewater treatment facilities and would not result in increased operational GHG emissions. Additionally, the anticipated utility extensions would not alter the

14 Appendix D provides detailed model inputs, assumptions, and outputs.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.4-5 Impact Analysis – Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy anticipated development capacity for the City within the City’s planning horizon and, therefore, would not result in a change in total annual operational emissions as analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. As described in Impact 4.3-2, any slight increase in potable water consumption at Bayer and Clark Pacific would not result in a substantial increase in long-term operational emissions. Similarly, should other existing commercial facilities extend utilities within one mile of the existing ULL, there would not be a change in total annual operational emissions as analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

As described above, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and CAP. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded impacts related to the generation of GHG emissions would be less than cumulatively considerable and this conclusion would not change as a result of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.5-2: Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.5-41 to 4.5-43) discusses potential impacts related to conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR describes the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) developed by the local Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). The MTP/SCS is a long-range planning document for the Sacramento region links land use, air quality, and transportation needs and identifies policies and strategies to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles to targets set by CARB in accordance with SB 375. As part of development of the MTP/SCS, SACOG develops population and employment projections that inform land use and transportation planning throughout the region, which differ from the City’s estimate of development capacity under the 2035 General Plan due to differences in methodology and the purposes of the estimates. For development projects that seek to utilize the CEQA streamlining allowed under SB 375 and other related legislation, it will be necessary to demonstrate project-level consistency with the MTP/SCS. The City has structured the 2035 General Plan and 2035 CAP to provide a level of GHG emission reductions consistent with State reduction targets. However, neither the 2035 General Plan nor the 2035 CAP contains specific policy or implementation guidance to ensure that consistency with the MTP/SCS is achieved on a project basis for projects seeking to utilize available CEQA streamlining. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR identified Mitigation Measure 4.5-2, which requires projects seeking to utilize available CEQA streamlining to determine project consistency with the MTP/SCS as a component of application review, and reduced impacts to a less-than- significant level.

The proposed project is amending an existing General Plan policy and is not a land use development project, would not result in any new operational vehicle trips, and is not seeking to utilize streamlining in accordance with SB 375. Additionally, as described above in Impact 4.5-1, the proposed project would not introduce new development or induce population growth beyond what was analyzed and assumed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The proposed project would also not conflict with the CAP, as described in Impact 4.5-1 above, and would support implementation of applicable objectives and strategies in the CAP to reduce GHG emissions. For the reasons described above, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. Given the above, impacts related to plans, policies, or regulations related to reducing GHGs would not be less than significant with mitigation as reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, as the mitigation measure identified in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR is not

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy 4.4-6 Draft SEIR required for the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.5-3: Develop Land Uses or Development Patterns that Cause Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.5-43 to 4.5-63) discusses potential impacts related to the consumption of energy from implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP. Estimates of the maximum annual energy demand in the form of natural gas, electricity, and fuel associated with future operations within the Planning Area with implementation of the 2035 General Plan are provided in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR also discusses the anticipated construction-related energy demand associated with development with implementation of the 2035 General Plan. With regard to construction-related energy consumption, development under the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR was not anticipated to have any unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment or methods that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites. With regard to operational energy consumption, General Plan policies encourage minimizing energy and water demand and wastewater generation and encourage methods to minimize solid waste generation and increase waste diversion systems. Policy 2.C.2 also requires new development to be consistent with the objectives and targets of the City’s CAP, which specifically provides objectives, strategies, and implementation measures to reduce energy demand associated with the Planning Area.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan and CAP would improve overall energy efficiency on a per-service population basis compared to existing conditions. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant.

Implementation of the proposed project would increase the consumption of energy for the duration of construction, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel) to power construction vehicles and equipment operating on-site, trucks delivering equipment and supplies to the site, and construction workers driving to and from the site. Table 4.4-1 presents the total fuel consumption anticipated for the proposed construction activities, which was estimated based on the emissions calculations for proposed construction activities modeled using CalEEMod, as further detailed in Section 4.2 “Air Quality” and Impact 4.5-1 in this SEIR, and application of the EIA CO2 emissions coefficients (EIA 2024) to estimate fuel consumption from proposed project construction activities.

Table 4.4-1 Modeled Construction Fuel Consumption
Energy Consuming Component Diesel (gallons) Gasoline (gallons) Bayer
On-Site Equipment Use 9,065 0
Off-Site On-road Vehicles 926 598
Bayer Subtotal 9,991 598
Clark Pacific
On-Site Equipment Use 6,696 0
Off-Site On-road Vehicles 40 520
Clark Pacific Subtotal 6,737 520
Total 16,728 1,118
Modeled by AECOM in 2025. See Appendix D for detailed emissions modeling and energy calculations.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.4-7 Impact Analysis – Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Fuel consumption rates would vary over the duration of construction based on the intensity of construction activities. This includes factors such as the amount and duration of equipment use, as well as the number of vehicle trips and distances traveled during each phase of construction. The proposed construction-related activities and associated equipment use are necessary to implement the proposed project. Related fuel consumption would be temporary, ceasing after the completion of construction, and would not represent a significant demand on available energy resources beyond normal construction fuel usage. Additionally, proposed project construction activities would be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including applicable federal, state, and local laws that are intended to promote efficient utilization of resources, such as California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off- road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes.

Construction equipment and vehicle activity and related energy consumption would be typical of that associated with construction of the types of projects in the region and of similar type and scale to the proposed project. The proposed project does not include unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites. Therefore, construction associated with the proposed project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of fuel or other energy sources or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Additionally, the incremental increase in construction energy consumption associated with the proposed project would be minimal compared to the construction energy consumption associated with development anticipated in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR and would not be inefficient compared to what was analyzed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Operation of the utility extensions to provide water and wastewater services to Bayer and Clark Pacific would be accommodated by the existing energy infrastructure in place and would not require the expansion of energy infrastructure. Additionally, as described above in Impacts 4.5-1 and 4.5-2, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan Policy 5.G.5, “Recycled Water” and CAP Strategy MO-3, “Increased Energy Efficiency and Use of Renewable Energy” through the provision of wastewater service to Clark Pacific, which would reduce operational energy consumption associated with the City’s water supply. Finally, the utility extensions allowing connection to the City’s existing water and wastewater systems and associated energy infrastructure would result in increased energy efficiency compared to existing groundwater and well water pumping at Bayer and Clark Pacific. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of fuel or other energy sources or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR concluded impacts related to energy would be less than significant, and this conclusion would not change as a result of the proposed project for the reasons described above. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy nor such impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.5-1 Impact Analysis – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources and tribal cultural resources include archaeological traces such as Native American occupation sites and artifacts, historic-era buildings and structures, and places used for traditional Native American practices or other properties with special cultural significance.

Section 4.6, “Cultural Resources,” of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.6-1 to 4.6-32) described cultural resources and addressed potential impacts associated with the implementation of the General Plan and CAP on identified and previously undiscovered cultural resources and human remains, and identified mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts, where applicable. That information is hereby incorporated by reference. This section provides updated information related to the environmental setting, the regulatory setting, and potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to the proposed project, where applicable.

As described below, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Notice of Preparation was released prior to changes to existing regulations and certified prior to changes in CEQA Appendix G checklist to include an evaluation of tribal cultural resources. Therefore, this section provides updated information related to the environmental setting, the regulatory setting, and potential adverse physical environmental effects on tribal cultural resources attributable to the proposed project, where applicable.

4.5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

REGULATORY SETTING
The regulatory setting in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR was presented on pages 4.6-10 to 4.6-16. Assembly Bill 52 (effective July 1, 2015) did not apply to the 2035 General Plan because the process was initiated in 2013; however, subsequent projects implementing the 2035 General Plan are subject to the requirements.

UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
AB 52, Public Resources Code Section 21074 was presented in Section 4.6 “Cultural Resources” on page 4.6-12 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. No updates to the regulatory setting is required.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is described in 2035 General Plan and CAP (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.6-1 to 4.6-9), is current as it relates to potential effects attributable with the proposed project to historical resources and archaeological resources, and is hereby incorporated by reference. The setting provides precontact and historic-period context related to known cultural resources, as well as the potential to encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources that could be adversely affected by direct physical impacts or by changes to the setting from future development.

Tribal cultural resources were not discussed within Section 4.6 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The following environmental setting provides context for tribal cultural resources that may be encountered in the project area.

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 4.5-2 Draft SEIR

UPDATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
In order to characterize the environmental setting for cultural resources, including built environment (i.e., architectural), archeological resources (both precontact and historical), and tribal cultural resources of the proposed project, AECOM conducted a cultural resources record search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University on July 24, 2025 to identify previously recorded cultural resource records within a quarter of a mile of the proposed utility extension alignments for Bayer and Clark Pacific (NWIC File No. 25-0097). AECOM also submitted a Sacred Lands File search request to the Native American Heritage Commission on July 28, 2025, In addition, on July 30, 2025 AECOM Archaeologist Zenzi Moore-Dawes surveyed the proposed utility alignments for the Woodland Urban Limit project. The results of the record search, Sacred Lands File search, Native American consultation, and field survey are described below. In addition, as noted above, tribal cultural resources were not discussed in the certified 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR because Appendix G was not amended to include tribal cultural resources as a stand-alone environmental factor separate from cultural resources until 2016, after the adoption of Assembly Bill 52 which added a definition of tribal cultural resources. Therefore, contextual information has been added below as the potential for a new impact in relation to the proposed project.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Based on the results of the cultural resources records search, no archaeological resources (precontact or historic- age) were identified within the proposed project area or within a 0.25-mile search radius buffer. The Sacred Lands File search results provided by the Native American Heritage Commission on July 29, 2025 were negative and Native American consultation efforts did not identify tribal cultural resources.

As observed during the pedestrian field survey conducted in July 2025, the majority of the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment is within highly-disturbed areas and covered in gravel or agricultural dirt. No cultural materials were observed during the field survey.

The Bayer utility alignment is proposed under an existing dirt road flanked by agricultural fields. During the field survey, the archaeologist conducted boot scrapes at random intervals and bioturbation from burrowing mammals was inspected for cultural materials. No cultural materials were observed during the pedestrian survey of the Bayer utility extension alignment.

Based on the records search results, outreach efforts, and field surveys, the project area for Bayer and Clark Pacific lacks known precontact or historic-age archaeologically sensitive sites or tribal cultural resources.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES
Per the record search results of the project area and 0.25-mile search radius (NWIC File No. 25-0097), the Clark Pacific facility contains National Register of Historic Places-eligible buildings and structures associated with the 1937-constructed Spreckels Sugar Factory (recorded as Primary Number (P]-57-00792). A two-story Moderne- style Office Building, a three-story Moderne-style Sugar Refining Plant (no longer extant), and nine bulk bins (concrete silos) were found to be historically significant at the local level for the economic contribution to the County. In addition, the Moderne-style buildings were designed by notable architect George Kelham of San Francisco, who designed buildings for the 1915 Panama-Pacific Exposition and the Palace Hotel in San Francisco.

The buildings were noted as some of the few examples of Moderne architecture in the County (Les 1986). The

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.5-3 Impact Analysis – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources historical significance of the property is physically conveyed through the character-defining features of the extant Moderne-style Office Building including its rectangular plan, symmetry, projecting pilasters on the primary façade with entry projection below, and horizontal banding encircling the cornice. Four historic-age built resources were identified with the 0.25-mile search buffer. The National Register of Historic Places-listed Nelson Ranch is on the adjacent parcel to the east of the Clark Pacific facility. The property contains an 1872-constructed house. The other cultural resources with the search radius are the alignment of the former California Pacific Railroad route through Yolo County, a former settlement site along the Southern Pacific Railroad, and an electrical transmission line.

Per the record search results of the project area and 0.25-mile search radius (File No. 25-0097) for the Bayer facility, no previously recorded historic architecture resources are on the Bayer facility, or within the footprint of proposed utility pipelines, and the Bayer facility itself is not recommended as meeting the requirements of a historical resource. Sixteen previously recorded historic-age built environment resources were identified within

0.25 mile of the proposed utility alignments and associated project components.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Tribal cultural resources are resources that have cultural value to a California Native American tribe. Tribal Cultural Resources could include any site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object. Such resources must be listed or eligible for listing in the California or National registers or can be identified at the discretion of the lead agency. These can include Native American archaeological sites, ethnobotanical resources, Native American ceremonial or sacred areas, and Native American human remains.

As noted above, the Sacred Lands File search results provided by the Native American Heritage Commission on July 29, 2025 for the project area were negative.

Contemporary Native American Setting
Prior to the appearance of European American explorers and settlers, the Upper Sacramento Valley within Yolo County was occupied by Wintun, specifically the Patwin, who occupied the southernmost extent of Wintuan speakers. The Patwin lived in what is now Yolo, Colusa, and Solano counties.

Archaeologists routinely focus on traditional Native American culture and ignore current and vibrant Native American culture. This approach is not sufficient to provide a context or set of values maintained by the current Native American community related to their history and the landscape. Tribes view themselves as contemporary stewards of their culture and the landscape, representing a continuum from time immemorial to the present. They are resilient, vibrant, and active in the community. Tribes maintain their connection to their history and ongoing culture by practicing traditional ceremonies, engaging in traditional practices (e.g., basketry), and contributing to public education and interpretation. California has acknowledged the importance and contributions of Native American history, traditional knowledge and cultural practices, as well as the persistence of Tribes and the Tribal community (Executive Order B-10-11 and N-15-19).

Today, Tribes are actively involved in defining their role as stewards of their ancestral sites and homelands including subject matter expertise on the identification of tribal cultural resources. Tribal cultural resources represent areas of cultural significance that are rooted in, or contribute to, cultural practices, traditional stories,

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 4.5-4 Draft SEIR traditional knowledge, and cultural identity. Tribal cultural resources provide the backdrop to religious understanding, traditional stories, knowledge of resources such as varying landscapes, bodies of water, animals and plants, and self-identity. Wintun stories passed down through generations through spoken word feature the animals, plants, and geographical features of their traditional lands. Knowledge of place is central to the continuation and persistence of culture, even if former Tribal occupants live removed from their traditional homeland. Tribal groups view these interconnected sites and places as living entities; their associations and feelings persist and connect with descendant communities (Yocha Dehe 2025).

Tribal Consultation
As a part of this environmental review, the City sent invitations to consult pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52 to all Native American tribal representatives identified by the Native American Heritage Commission and all Native American tribal representatives that have indicated to the City that they wish to be invited for consultation for projects subject to CEQA review. Certified letters to contacts with mailing addresses were sent via United States Postal Service on August 14, 2025 and emails to contacts with email addresses were sent on August 15, 2025.

These tribes included: Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community, Cortina Rancheria - Kletsel Dehe Band of Wintun Indians, Grindstone Rancheria of Wintun-Wailaki, United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria, Wilton Rancheria, Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, Ione Band of Miwok Indians and Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians. Wilton Rancheria responded on August 21, 2025 that they have no comments and do not wish to open consultation at this time. The City called all other Tribes that did not respond on September 26, 2025. The Yoche Dehe Wintun Nation provided a letter to the City on October 2, 2025 identifying that the proposed project is within the aboriginal territories of the Yoche Dehe Wintun Nation and requesting to receive updates on the project. The City followed up with Yoche Dehe Wintun Nation on October 14, 2025 and as of the preparation of this Draft SEIR, has not received a response.

4.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds for evaluating the significance of cultural resource impacts for this analysis are based on the environmental checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and are the same as those used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.15 These thresholds are used to evaluate potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to implementation of the proposed project, with a focus on impacts beyond those addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. A significant impact to cultural resources would occur if the proposed project would:
► cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5; ► cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5;
► disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries.

15 Appendix G, V. Cultural Resources was revised in 2016 and the certification of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, which removed the paleontological impact of “directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature” and “eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory” from consideration.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.5-5 Impact Analysis – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR did not include an evaluation of potential effects to tribal cultural resources, because the Notice of Preparation was prepared prior to the requirement to evaluate tribal cultural resources.

Since the certification of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist was revised to include the bullet list below, pertaining specifically to tribal cultural resources. Therefore, these thresholds are used to evaluate potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to implementation of the proposed project, with a focus on impacts beyond those addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. A significant impact on tribal cultural resources would occur if the proposed project would:
► cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
• listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or • a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

The impact numbering in the section below corresponds to those numbers used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR for ease of reference.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.6-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Archaeological or Historical Resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5
Tribal cultural resources, per the definition in Section 21074, can be determined as historical resource as defined under Section 15064.5 pursuant to Section 5020.1, or deemed significant under Section 5024.1 as presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant. A historical resource, as described in Section 21084.1, is a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a). Therefore, this impact analysis includes archaeological resources, historical resources, and tribal cultural resources.

As discussed in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.6-21 to 4.6-22) projects proposed for implementation under the 2035 General Plan include the construction of new buildings and structures, modification of existing buildings and structures, and infrastructure improvements involve intensive grading, trenching, excavation, soil stockpiling, and other earthmoving activities that could impact previously unknown cultural resources. Although no previously recorded archaeological resources were identified in the Planning Area for the General Plan, projects involving ground disturbance could impact previously unrecorded cultural resources and/or tribal cultural resources. Therefore, implementation of projects under the General Plan have the potential to damage or destroy archaeological resources and/or tribal cultural resources that qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. Projects under the General Plan also have the potential to affect

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 4.5-6 Draft SEIR unidentified built-environment cultural resources, like barns and residences on rural properties that may presently or in the future have cultural significance, through either direct physical impacts or by changes to the setting. The significance of such cultural resources could be materially impaired because their ability to convey significance could be destroyed or diminished. This impact would be significant and unavoidable even after implementation of Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a, 4.6-1b, 4.6-1c, and 4.6-1d.

The proposed project includes extension of existing utilities along the alignments shown in Figure 3.1-2 and Figure 3.1-3 to the Bayer and Clark Pacific facilities and decommissioning of existing infrastructure. Extension of the utility pipelines for each business would be less than one mile and would traverse primarily adjacent to existing roads (within the public right-of-way) or existing agricultural land. Construction of the pipeline alignments would require a horizontal area disturbance of a total of 25 feet in width (typically 5 feet one side and 20 feet other side) and a buried maximum depth of approximately 8 feet below ground surface. The decommissioning of existing groundwater wells and wastewater utility facilities at the two existing commercial facilities would ultimately occur.

As described in Section 4.5.1, the Clark Facility contains National Register of Historic Places-eligible buildings and structures associated with the former Spreckels Sugar Factory. While the property has a loss of historic integrity of association, as it no longer processes sugar beets, and loss of integrity of design, materials, and workmanship with the demolition of the three-story Moderne-style Sugar Refining Plant, the extant Moderne- style Office Building and concrete bulk bins still physically convey historical and architectural significance.

Therefore, they are considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. No archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources have been identified with the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment or facility. The ground-disturbing elements of the proposed project are not sited near the historically significant concrete silos or the Moderne-style Office Building; therefore, there would be no direct physical impacts to these historic architectural resources. The well decommissioning activities and leach field abandonment, likewise, would not adversely affect the historical resources. These utility elements are ubiquitous infrastructure that are necessary for an industrial facility, and they do not contribute to the historical significance of the property. None of the proposed elements of the project within the Clark Pacific facility (former Spreckels Sugar Factory) would result in either direct physical impacts or changes to the setting during construction or operation. The historical and architectural significance of the resources would not be materially impaired or diminished through damage or destruction. No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts on historic architectural resources that qualify as historical resources.

No previously recorded historic architecture resources are located at the Bayer facility, or within the Bayer utility extension alignment, and the Bayer facility itself is not recommended as meeting the requirements of a historical resource. None of the proposed project elements for the Bayer facility would result in direct physical impacts to any known historic architecture resources. No archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources have been identified with the associated Bayer Facility project elements. There are no known historical resources; therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation measures are required.

Construction and operation of the proposed project would include ground-disturbance and excavation that could impact previously unidentified archaeological resources and/or tribal cultural resources. There is a low potential for unidentified archaeological resources and/or tribal cultural resources to exist along the utility extension alignments for Bayer and Clark Pacific because the extension of the utility lines would occur within highly disturbed areas of the public rights-of-way of existing roads, disturbed existing agricultural fields, or within

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.5-7 Impact Analysis – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources developed areas. Furthermore, the record search, pedestrian survey, and Native American consultation did not identify archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources that would be impacted by these two utility extension alignments. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1d: Implementation Program Cultural 3 (Implementation Program 7.13 of the 2035 General Plan, Appendix A, City of Woodland 2017) would minimize and reduce potential impacts on unidentified archaeological resources during construction by stopping work and protecting or removing the resource.

If other commercial facilities located within one mile of the existing ULL, and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026, extend utilities, the types of impacts described above for historic architectural resources and unidentified archeological resources and/or tribal cultural resources for Bayer and Clark Pacific would be similar because proposed utility extension alignments would occur within highly disturbed areas of the public rights-of- way of existing roads, disturbed agricultural fields, or within developed areas and because utility elements are typically ubiquitous infrastructure that are necessary for industrial or commercial facilities that generally do not contribute to the historical significance of a property. However, the 2035 General Plan policies and mitigation measures implementing existing regulations and laws to reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources, historical resources, and tribal cultural resources would be applicable to the proposed project:
• Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b: Implementation Program Cultural 1 (Implementation Program 7.11 of the 2035 General Plan, Appendix A, City of Woodland 2017)
• Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c: Implementation Program Cultural 2 (Implementation Program 7.11 of the 2035 General Plan, Appendix A, City of Woodland 2017)
• Mitigation Measure 4.6-1d: Implementation Program Cultural 3 (Implementation Program 7.13 of the 2035 General Plan, Appendix A, City of Woodland 2017)
Given the above, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.6-2: Disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR on pages 4.6-29 to 4.6-31, projects implemented under the 2035 General Plan involve grading, trenching, excavation, soil stockpiling, and other earthmoving activities during construction that could impact human remains. Although there is no indication that any particular area in the General Plan area has been used for human burial purposes outside of designated cemeteries in the recent or distant past, there is nonetheless the potential for discovery during construction of development and infrastructure projects facilitated under the 2035 General Plan. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-2.

Construction and operation of the proposed project involves excavation that could impact human remains. There is a very low likelihood of disturbing unknown human remains during the construction of the proposed utility extensions for Bayer and Clark Pacific, or for other commercial facilities located within one mile of the existing ULL, because the alignments would be placed in the public-rights-of-way of existing roads that are highly disturbed, or agricultural fields/dirt roads that are also highly disturbed. However, the 2035 General Plan policies and mitigation measures implementing existing regulations and laws to reduce potential impacts to unknown or

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 4.5-8 Draft SEIR undiscovered human remains would be applicable to the proposed project in the unlikely event human remains were discovered:
• Mitigation Measure 4.6-2: Implementation Program Cultural 4 (Implementation Program 7.14 of the 2035 General Plan, City of Woodland 2017)
Given the above, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.6-1 Impact Analysis – Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources

4.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Section 4.7, “Geology, Soils, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources,” of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.7-1 to 4.7-36) described soils, geologic, and seismic conditions along with a paleontological resources sensitivity assessment, addressed potential impacts associated with the implementation of the General Plan and CAP, and identified mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts, where applicable. That information is hereby incorporated by reference.

This section provides updated information related to the environmental setting, the regulatory setting, and potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to the proposed project, where applicable. As noted in Section 2.1.4, “Other Environmental Topics Not Discussed in Detail in this Supplemental EIR,” mineral resources were dismissed from further discussion in this SEIR and therefore are not addressed in this section.

4.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

REGULATORY SETTING
The “Regulatory Setting” in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR remains primarily unchanged as it relates to potential effects associated with the proposed project and is hereby incorporated by reference (Section 4.7.3, pages 4.7-21 to 4.7-26). There have been no substantive changes to federal, state, or county regulations regarding seismic hazards or soils. There have been several updates to the numbering of local municipal codes since the certification of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, but these changes do not substantively alter the contents of the codes. These include:
► The City of Woodland Building Division implements the 2022 California Building Standards Code as adopted by Woodland Municipal Code Title 15, Chapter 15.1, Section 15.04.010 (and as locally amended by Section 15.04.030), and will implement future versions of the California Building Standards Code, as applicable.
► City’s Grading Ordinance Woodland Municipal Code Title 15 Chapter 15.12, which (1) establish standards and procedures for grading and excavation, and (2) ensure that projects will be free from harmful effects of runoff, including inundation and erosion, and that neighboring and downstream property will be protected from drainage problems resulting from new development.
► Title 8 Chapter 8.08 of the Woodland Municipal Code regulates discharges into the municipal storm drain system including compliance with applicable provisions of construction NPDES permit requirements.

In addition to the updates to the local municipal codes, the County has requirements related to abandoning wells and septic systems. A County water well abandonment permit can be granted by the Yolo County Department of Community Services Environmental Health Division without a discretionary action by the County. Existing septic system(s) can be abandoned pursuant to the Septic Abandonment Permit also granted by the Yolo County Yolo County Department of Community Services Environmental Health Division.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is described in 2035 General Plan and CAP (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.7-1 to 4.7-17), is current as it relates to potential effects attributable the proposed project, and is hereby

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources 4.6-2 Draft SEIR incorporated by reference. The environmental setting provides a description of existing, geologic and seismic conditions (Sections 4.7.2.1 through 4.7.2.3), soils (Section 4.7.2.5), and paleontological resources (Section

4.7.2.7). The General Plan Planning Area could be subject to a moderately low level of seismic ground shaking from known active faults in the Coast Ranges (approximately 25–30 miles west); or from segments 3 and 4 of the Great Valley Fault Zone, which is a blind-thrust fault belt located along the margin between the Central Valley and the Coast Ranges (approximately 6 miles west) (pages 4.7-5 and 4.7-6). The General Plan Planning Area could also be subject to liquefaction hazards in areas where the groundwater table is high and which are composed of unconsolidated, water-saturated sediments (page 4.7-6). Soils within the General Plan Planning Area are rated with a low wind erosion hazard and a slight to moderate water erosion hazard (page 4.7-8). In addition, soils have low to high shrink-swell rating, depending on the location (pages 4.7-8 through 4.7-11). Two of the geologic formations within the General Plan Planning Area (i.e., the Modesto and Riverbank Formations) have a high sensitivity for paleontological resources (page 4.7-17). The text below provides updated information regarding geology, soils, and paleontological resources within the proposed project area, which is similar to information provided in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The information provided below does not lead to a new impact or increase in severity of any impact in relation to the proposed project.

UPDATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Earthquake shaking hazards have been calculated by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities by projecting earthquake rates based on earthquake history and fault slip rates, the same data used for calculating earthquake probabilities. The probabilistic Earthquake Shaking Potential for California (Branum et al. 2016) indicates that the proposed project area is rated with a moderately low potential shaking hazard intensity (i.e., an estimated peak horizontal ground acceleration ranging from approximately 0.55 to 0.65g). Regions with these ratings are distant from known, active faults and will experience lower levels of shaking less frequently. In most earthquakes, only weaker, masonry buildings would be damaged. However, very infrequent earthquakes could still cause strong shaking (Branum et al. 2016).

Soil liquefaction potential depends on the type of soil, the level and duration of seismic ground motions, and the depth to groundwater. The locations that are most susceptible to liquefaction-induced damage have loose, water- saturated, granular sediment that is within 40 feet of the ground surface. Recent data from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR 2024) indicates that the depth to groundwater in the vicinity of Woodland is greater on the west side and becomes shallower towards the east. Groundwater depths range from 50 feet below the ground surface approximately one mile west of the ULL, to 10 feet below the ground surface approximately one mile east of the ULL (DWR 2024). The depth to groundwater in the proposed project area along the Bayer utility extension alignment is approximately 50 feet below the ground surface, and the depth to groundwater in the proposed project area along the Clark Pacific utility extension alignment is approximately 20–30 feet below the ground surface (DWR 2024).

The same soils that are present within the existing ULL are also present in the areas of the proposed project (Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS] 2024). In general, soils within the existing ULL and outside the ULL are rated with a low wind erosion hazard, and a slight to moderate water erosion hazard (NRCS 2024). The soils in the proposed project area along the Bayer utility extension alignment consist of soils found within the ULL and include Rincon silty clay loam and Myers clay, which have a high and very high shrink-swell rating, respectively (NRCS 2024). Similarly, soils in the proposed project area along the Clark Pacific utility extension

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.6-3 Impact Analysis – Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources alignment are also found within the ULL and consist of Reiff very fine sandy loam, Sycamore silt loam, Merritt silty clay loam, and Yolo silt loam; these soils have a low to moderate shrink-swell rating (NRCS 2024).

An updated records search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) collections database yielded information regarding a number of vertebrate fossil localities referable to either the Modesto or the Riverbank Formations (UCMP 2025), which is consistent with the information contained in Section 4.7.2.7 of the 2035 General Plan EIR and CAP. Because of the number of vertebrate fossils that have been recovered from the Modesto and Riverbank Formations, they are considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity (page 4.7-17).

4.6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds for evaluating the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and are the same as those used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. These thresholds are used to evaluate potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, with a focus on impacts beyond those addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
A significant impact related to geology, soils, or seismicity would occur if the proposed project would:
► expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
• rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;
• strong seismic ground shaking;
• seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or • landslides;
► result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; ► be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; ► be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property;
► have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water;

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources 4.6-4 Draft SEIR ► result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state;
► result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan; or ► result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Landslide Hazards—As identified in the 2023 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 4.7-24), the land in Woodland and up to one mile beyond the existing ULL is nearly flat, with grades ranging from 0–4 percent; therefore, landslides would not represent a hazard and are not discussed further in this SEIR.

Loss of Availability of Known Mineral Resources—Impacts related to mineral resources are discussed in Section 2.1.4, “Other Environmental Topics Not Discussed in Detail in this Supplemental EIR.” Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow—These impacts are addressed in Section 4.9, “Hydrology, Flooding, and Water Quality,” consistent with the current version of the Appendix G checklist.

Paleontological Resources
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. A “unique paleontological resource or site” is one that is considered significant under the following professional paleontological standards.

An individual vertebrate fossil specimen may be considered unique or significant if it is identifiable and well preserved, and it meets one of the following criteria:
► a type specimen (i.e., the individual from which a species or subspecies has been described); ► a member of a rare species;
► a species that is part of a diverse assemblage (i.e., a site where more than one fossil has been discovered) wherein other species are also identifiable, and important information regarding life history of individuals can be drawn;
► a skeletal element different from, or a specimen more complete than, those now available for its species; or ► a complete specimen (i.e., all or substantially all of the entire skeleton is present).

The value or importance of different fossil groups varies depending on the age and depositional environment of the rock unit that contains the fossils, their rarity, the extent to which they have already been identified and documented, and the ability to recover similar materials under more controlled conditions (such as for a research project). Marine invertebrates are generally common; the fossil record is well developed and well documented, and they would generally not be considered a unique paleontological resource. Identifiable vertebrate marine and terrestrial fossils are generally considered scientifically important because they are relatively rare.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.6-5 Impact Analysis – Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources The impact numbering in the section below corresponds to those numbers used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR for ease of reference.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.7-1: Seismic Hazards Related to Surface Fault Rupture, Strong Seismic Ground Shaking, and Liquefaction As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 4.7-31), development planned as a part of the 2035 General Plan could lead to an increase in the number of people and structures exposed to hazards associated with strong seismic ground shaking and liquefaction. Although there are no faults present within the city of Woodland, people and structures within city boundaries could experience seismic ground shaking or liquefaction as a result of earthquakes in the Coast Ranges. However, implementation of 2035 General Plan Policy 8.A.1 and Policy

8.A.2, in combination with compliance with existing geologic and seismic regulations and policies, would reduce the potential for adverse impacts to people or structures related to seismic shaking and liquefaction. The city would enforce existing seismic safety standards by requiring development to be designed to minimize risk related to earthquakes, and would require preparation of site-specific geotechnical reports to identify methods to reduce hazards. Impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project does not involve the construction of facilities that would be inhabited by people and therefore would not expose people to seismic hazards. However, the construction of the proposed project would include ground-disturbance and excavation that would be required to follow the existing geologic and seismic regulations and policies described in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, to ensure that operation of the pipelines would not result in seismic hazards for the surrounding population. The City would enforce existing seismic safety standards as applicable to underground pipeline installation, particularly the City’s Engineering Standards: Design Standards, Standard Details and Construction Specifications. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.7-2: Impacts Related to Soil Erosion.

As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 4.7-30), development planned as part of the 2035 General Plan could have the potential to cause an increase in soil erosion due to increased grading, excavation, and other development-related construction activities. However, compliance with existing stormwater, grading, and erosion control regulations and implementation of policies in the 2035 General Plan would reduce the impact by requiring applicants to develop a SWPPP, implement BMPs, and obtain a grading permit, all of which are specifically designed to minimize soil erosion to the maximum extent feasible. Impacts would be less than significant.

The construction of the proposed project would include ground-disturbance and excavation that would be required to follow existing stormwater, grading, and erosion control regulations, and implementation of policies in the 2035 General Plan would reduce the impact by requiring applicants to follow develop a SWPPP, implement BMPs, and obtain a grading permit, described in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, given the potential area of disturbance is anticipated to be greater than 1 acre for Bayer (approximately 1.5 acres) and Clark Pacific (approximately 10 acres). The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources 4.6-6 Draft SEIR would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.7-3: Geologic Hazards Related to Unstable Soils, Expansive Soils, and Soil Unsuitable for Septic Systems As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 4.7-32), buildings and infrastructure planned as part of the 2035 General Plan could potentially be placed on unstable soils, expansive soils, or soils unsuitable for septic systems. Based on a review of soil data, there are areas that contain unstable soils with low strength, subsidence potential, and ponding; expansive soils with high shrink-swell potential; and soils unsuitable for septic systems due to their low permeability rates. Implementation of policies in the 2035 General Plan combined with current geologic laws, regulations, and policies would reduce impacts related to unstable and expansive soils by requiring construction follow geologic stability standards, prepare site-specific geotechnical reports to identify soil shrink- swell potential, and follow design specifications to prevent impacts associated with these limitations. However, the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR determined impacts to be less than significant with mitigation regarding soils unsuitable for septic systems because septic systems could be implemented as part of the General Plan and required implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-3a, 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Soils 1).

The construction of the proposed project would include ground-disturbance and excavation that would be required to implement policies in the 2035 General Plan combined with current geologic laws, regulations, and policies, which reduce impacts related to unstable and expansive soils by requiring that construction follow geologic and soil stability standards. The proposed project would not require the development of septic systems and would remove existing septic systems. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.7-3a proposed as part of the 2035 General Plan EIR and CAP is not applicable to the proposed project and is not required. Impacts related to geologic hazards related to unstable soils, expansive soils, and soil unsuitable for septic system and the proposed project would not be less than significant with mitigation as reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, as the mitigation measure reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR is not required for the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.7-4: Loss or Damage to Paleontological Resources During Earth-Moving Activities As discussed in the 2035 General Plan EIR and CAP (page 4.7-35), various vertebrate specimens have been discovered within the vicinity of Woodland and throughout the Central Valley in the Modesto and Riverbank Formations; therefore, these geologic formations are of high paleontological sensitivity. Policies in the 2035 General Plan would reduce the potential for impacts to paleontological resources by ensuring their evaluation and protection, as appropriate, in accordance with applicable federal and State laws and regulations if resources are discovered. However, Mitigation Measure 4.7-4, 2035 General Plan should be amended to include the following new implementation program (Implementation Program Paleontological Resources 1), was identified to specify additional detailed resource protection measures. With implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level because earth-moving activities in paleontologically sensitive rock formations would be subjective to requirements consisting of construction worker personnel education, halting of work in the vicinity of fossil specimen(s) uncovered, evaluation of the specimen by a paleontologist, and preparation of a recovery plan for said specimen(s) if necessary.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.6-7 Impact Analysis – Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources Construction of the proposed Bayer utility extension alignment would occur within Holocene-age Levee and Channel Deposits, and a mixture of the Pleistocene-age Modesto and Riverbank Formations. Construction of the proposed Clark Pacific utility extension alignment would occur within Holocene-age Basin Deposits (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, Exhibit 4.7-1, page 4.7-3). As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 4.7-17), Holocene-age deposits contain only the remains of extant, modern taxa (if any resources are present), which are not considered “unique” paleontological resources. Therefore, construction in these Holocene deposits would have no impact on unique paleontological resources. However, because the Modesto and Riverbank Formations are considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity, construction of the water and sewer pipelines for the Bayer facility would have the potential to accidentally damage or destroy unique paleontological resources. However, consistent with the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, the project applicant would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 4.7-4, to apply the 2035 General Plan Implementation Program Paleontological Resources 1 (Implementation Program 7.15 of the 2035 General Plan, City of Woodland 2017), during construction activities. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.7-1 Impact Analysis – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Section 4.8, “Hazardous Materials and Toxics,” of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.8-1 through 4.8-46) described potential hazards related to hazardous materials, airports, and also includes information about emergency preparedness in Woodland, provided a summary of applicable regulations, analyzed the potential hazards from implementation of the City’s General Plan, and identified mitigation measures to reduce significant hazard impacts. That information is hereby incorporated by reference into this SEIR.

This section provides updated information related to the environmental setting, the regulatory setting, and potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to the proposed project, where applicable. As noted in Section 2.1.4, “Other Environmental Topics Not Discussed in Detail in this Supplemental EIR,” wildfires were dismissed from further discussion in this SEIR and therefore are not addressed in this section.

4.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

REGULATORY SETTING
The “Regulatory Setting” in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR remains unchanged as it relates to potential effects associated with the proposed project and is hereby incorporated by reference (Section 4.8.3, pages 4.8-13 through 4.8-27).

UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
No updates to the regulatory setting are required.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is described in 2035 General Plan and CAP (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.8-1 through 4.8-13), is current as it relates to potential effects attributable the proposed project, and is hereby incorporated by reference. The setting provides information related to the locations and types of known hazardous materials sites on the Cortese List (California Government Code Section 65962.5), as well as other types of hazardous materials release sites. Both open active and closed (remediated) sites as of 2016 were included (pages 4.8-1 through 4.8-10). As shown in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Exhibit 4.8-2, most of the hazardous material release sites were located along Main Street and East Street, with several small clusters of sites along East Beamer Street and East Kentucky Avenue (page 4.8-5). The setting also identified the potential for agricultural chemicals to affect people and the environment through “drift” of the pesticide through the air from the target area to other areas, and through residual pesticides in agricultural soils (particularly in areas of orchard cultivation) (page 4.8-1). As shown in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Exhibit 4.8-1, there are several major natural gas transmission pipelines through Woodland along County Road 101 south of downtown, along Farnham Avenue, and along County Road 98 north of downtown (pages 4.8-2 and 4.8-3). Major routes in Woodland where hazardous materials could be transported, including roadways and rail lines, are also identified on 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Exhibit 4.8-1 (page 4.8-3). The setting also identifies airport safety hazards associated with the Sacramento International Airport. The eastern end of the City is situated within the airport’s Secondary Approach Area, where aircraft regularly fly below 3,000 feet. As discussed in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.7-2 Draft SEIR the Sacramento International Airport, a recorded Overflight Notification is required for land uses in this area (pages 4.8-10 and 4.8-11).

UPDATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Known Hazardous Materials Release Sites
In 2025, AECOM performed an updated search of publicly available databases maintained under Public Resources Code Section 65962.5 (i.e., the “Cortese List”) to determine whether any known hazardous materials are present either in or within 0.25 mile of the proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility alignments. These searches included the EnviroStor database maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC 2025), and the GeoTracker database maintained by the SWRCB (SWRCB 2025). Sites with closed cases are not part of the Cortese List, but may still be relevant if land use controls are in place, or if the case was closed recently with low levels of contamination still present but assuming no land disturbance would occur. Both of these databases also include sites that are not on the Cortese List (such as the SWRCB’s Cleanup Program), but these sites are relevant to the analysis since they involve releases of hazardous materials. A brief summary is provided below.

There are currently are six open, active hazardous materials cases in Woodland, all of which are administered under the SWRCB’s Cleanup Program (SWRCB 2025). None of the sites associated with these open, active Cleanup Program cases are located along the proposed Bayer or Clark Pacific utility extension alignments, and are also not located within one mile outside the ULL.

There is one hazardous materials case that was investigated and closed in 1996, located at George Aoki Farms, 37899 Highway 16, approximately 820 feet north of the proposed Bayer sewer pipeline alignment. This site involved a minor piping leak during removal of an underground storage tank, and after investigation it was determined that no further action was necessary (SWRCB 2025).

There are three hazardous materials cases related to leaking underground storage tanks used to store fuel and waste oil that were associated with the former Spreckels Sugar facility, now the site of the Clark Pacific facility.

When the tanks were removed, it was discovered that soil and groundwater contamination had occurred. The constituents of concern included total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, diesel, and motor oil; benzene; ethylbenzene; toluene; and xylene. The cases were closed in 2008 and 2010, respectively and no land use controls are in place (SWRCB 2025). The Spreckels Sugar facility, which operated from 1937 to 2002, also formerly contained approximately 23 acres of settling ponds for precipitated calcium carbonate.16 After Clark Pacific assumed ownership of the facility in 2008, they removed the precipitated calcium carbonate material over a period of approximately 6 years under an agreement with the Central Valley RWQCB (DTSC 2025). By 2014, removal of the material was complete and the former settling pond area was graded flat for Clark Pacific facility use. There is also one Cleanup Program case that was closed in 2021, Western Wood Treating located at 1492 Churchill Downs Avenue, approximately 460 feet west of the south end of the alignment for the Clark Pacific water and sewer pipelines along County Road 101. This site has land use controls in place (SWRCB 2025).

16 Precipitated calcium carbonate is a byproduct of the sugar manufacturing process. Calcium oxide and carbon dioxide are injected into extracted juice to form calcium carbonate, which causes impurities to precipitate from the juice from which sugar is extracted. Historically, precipitated calcium carbonate has been stockpiled over time near the site of sugar factories.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.7-3 Impact Analysis – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials Pipelines
Based on a review of mapping available from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA 2025) Public Map Viewer, there is a major natural gas pipeline that supplies the Clark Pacific facility; however, this pipeline is located within Best Ranch Road approximately 600 feet north of the proposed Clark Pacific utility extension alignment and the work areas associated with proposed closure of the on-site groundwater wells. The natural gas pipeline that runs through Woodland along Farnham Avenue extends northwest through the ULL, crosses Cache Creek, and eventually parallels Interstate 5 to the north; this pipeline also extends southeast through the ULL to Interstate 80 (PHMSA 2025). Finally, there is a major natural gas line pipeline along County Road 98 (PHMSA 2025); this pipeline is approximately 450 north of the proposed Bayer sewer pipeline. No known high-pressure pipeline ruptures or accidents have occurred in the vicinity of Woodland (PHMSA 2025).

Schools
Since the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR was certified, the Spring Lake Elementary School has been constructed at 2209 Miekle Avenue, within the Spring Lake development in southeast Woodland. However, there are no schools within 0.25 mile of the proposed Bayer or Clark Pacific utility extension alignments, or within the one-mile area beyond the ULL.

Airports
The Watts-Woodland Airport is approximately 2.6 miles west from the one-mile area beyond the ULL, and is approximately 3 miles and 6 miles west, respectively, from the proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility extension alignments. The land areas considered in this SEIR are not within the Watts-Woodland airport influence area (SACOG 1993).

4.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds for evaluating the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and are the same as those used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. These thresholds are used to evaluate potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, with a focus on impacts beyond those addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. A significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials would occur if the proposed project would:
► create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
► create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; ► emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.7-4 Draft SEIR ► result in a project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
► result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within an airport land use plan area; ► result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in a project area located within the vicinity of a private airstrip;
► impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
► expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Safety Hazards in the Vicinity of a Private Airstrip—In 2019, the CEQA Appendix G checklist was amended to remove the threshold related to safety hazards in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Nevertheless, for purposes of full disclosure and consistency with the 2023 General Plan and CAP EIR, the following information is provided.

As identified in the 2023 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 4.7-29), there are no private airstrips within the General Plan Planning Area, or within one mile of the ULL. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip and there would be no impact.

This impact is not discussed further in this SEIR.

Wildland Fire Hazards—Impacts related to wildland fire hazards are discussed in Section 2.1.4, “Other Environmental Topics Not Discussed in Detail in this Supplemental EIR.” The impact numbering in the section below corresponds to those numbers used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR for ease of reference.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.8-1: Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment through the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials
As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.8-29 through 4.8-31), development planned as a part of the 2035 General Plan would include future construction activities that would use small quantities of hazardous materials, such as fuels and oils, for construction equipment, and would include future land uses that would require the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous material and waste and may increase exposure to risk of hazards. However, implementation of 2035 General Plan Policies such as 8.E.1 through 8.E.5, in combination with compliance with existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations (discussed in detail in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR pages 4.8-13 through 4.8-27) that govern hazardous materials, would reduce the potential for adverse impacts to people or the environment from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant.

Construction associated with the proposed project would require the use of small amounts of hazardous materials such as fuel and oil for construction equipment, but would be required to follow the federal, state, and local regulations and policies that govern the routine use, transport, and disposal of hazardous material and waste

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.7-5 Impact Analysis – Hazards and Hazardous Materials described in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. Operation of the Bayer and Clark Pacific facilities would not change from existing conditions, and to extent that hazardous materials are used, transported, or disposed of during facility operations, both facilities are responsible for obtaining appropriate permits and operating their facilities in compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.8-2: Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment through Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.8-32 through 4.8-34), development planned as a part of the 2035 General Plan could include new facilities such as dry cleaners, gas stations, or industrial manufacturers that use hazardous materials, and therefore could result in upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, individual site-specific future projects would require a project-level environmental review at the time they are proposed. Although the risk of upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment cannot be completely eliminated, it can be reduced to a manageable level through required compliance of all business operators with federal, state, and local laws and regulations that govern hazardous materials (discussed in detail in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR pages 4.8-13 through 4.8-27), and compliance with 2035 General Plan Policies 8.E.1 through

8.E.5. Because future site-specific development under the 2035 General Plan would be required by law to be compliant with safety standards; because the City would require detailed planning for new uses that propose to generate or use hazardous materials and require that a buffer is provided between hazardous materials uses and sensitive receptors; and the City would track data on hazardous materials to inform risk management and emergency response providers, impacts would be less than significant.

Although there are several major hazardous materials pipelines within the City and within one mile outside of the ULL, there are no major hazardous materials pipelines within 450 feet of either the Bayer or Clark Pacific utility extension alignments, and no known high-pressure pipeline ruptures or accidents have occurred in the vicinity of Woodland (PHMSA 2025). Furthermore, the construction contractor for the proposed utility extensions would be required to follow standard procedures before the start of construction (as included in the contract bid specifications) to contact Underground Service Alert of Northern California (USA North 811) to verify the location(s) of all buried underground lines of any kind in the construction areas, and to flag and avoid the locations of any buried lines during construction activities. As discussed in Impact 4.8-1 above, construction of the proposed project would require the use of small amounts of hazardous materials such as fuel and oil for use in construction equipment. However, the project applicants and their construction contractors are required to follow federal, state, and local laws and regulations (discussed in detail in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR pages 4.8-13 through 4.8-27), which are designed to reduce the potential for a hazardous materials spill. To the extent that the Bayer or Clark Pacific facilities would use hazardous materials during operation, both facilities would continue to be required to obtain permits and comply with appropriate regulatory agency standards designed to avoid hazardous waste releases and protect the public health. Regulated activities would be managed by the Yolo County Department of Environmental Health (the designated Certified Unified Program Agency), and would be required to comply with CCR Title 8, “Industrial Relations,” for workplace regulations addressing hazardous materials, as well as Title 26, “Toxics.” Title 26, Division 6 contains requirements for California Highway Patrol enforcement of hazardous materials storage and rapid-response cleanup in the event of a leak or spill. The 2035

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.7-6 Draft SEIR General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.8-3: Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste within One-Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.8-34 through 4.8-38), development planned as a part of the 2035 General Plan could result in the use of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school, although there are no areas that are designated for Industrial uses with 0.25 mile of existing schools. The 2035 General Plan specifies that new schools would have to be built to serve new population growth, as needed, which would most likely be in new growth areas. In the case of a new school, the California Department of Education regulates the siting of schools, including new facilities and upgrading construction projects. New facilities would not be allowed within 0.25 mile of facilities emitting or handling hazardous materials, consistent with California Department of Education requirements. Construction and operation of site- specific projects are required to follow federal, state, and local laws and regulations (discussed in detail in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR pages 4.8-13 through 4.8-27), and must comply with 2035 General Plan Policies 8.E.1 through 8.E.5, all of which are designed to reduce the potential for hazardous materials spills, including spills that might occur near school facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Since the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR was certified, the Spring Lake Elementary School has been constructed at 2209 Miekle Avenue, within the Spring Lake development in southeast Woodland. However, there are no schools within the one-mile area beyond the ULL, or within 0.25 mile of the proposed Bayer or Clark Pacific utility extension alignments. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and the impact attributable to the proposed project would not occur, given the lack of schools.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.8-4: Be Located on a Site Which Is Included on a List of Hazardous Materials Sites Compiled Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a Result, Would Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment
As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.8-38 through 4.8-40), development planned as a part of the 2035 General Plan anticipates infill development in areas along Main Street and East Street where the largest concentration of hazardous materials sites is known to be present. Future development could also occur in other areas of the City where hazardous materials release sites are known to have occurred. Several of the sites listed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, from 2016, had reported releases that resulted in soil and groundwater contamination and which were subject to various state and federal laws and regulators, including U.S. EPA, DTSC, and the RWQCB. Development of sites with existing soil or groundwater contamination could potentially pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through releases of hazardous materials into the environment. However, before contaminated sites can be redeveloped, remediation of the hazardous materials must occur as required by the appropriate federal or state agency. Furthermore, future site-specific projects would be required to implement policies 8.E.1 through 8.E.5 in the 2035 General Plan, which are designed to lessen the impact of sites contaminated with hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.7-7 Impact Analysis – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Based on a records search conducted in 2025, there are no open active hazardous materials sites in the City that are on the Cortese List (DTSC 2025, SWRCB 2025). Currently, there are six open, active hazardous materials cases in Woodland, all of which are administered under the SWRCB’s Cleanup Program (SWRCB 2025). None of the sites associated with these open, active Cleanup Program cases are located within one mile outside the ULL, or along either the proposed Bayer or Clark Pacific utility extension alignments. There are three closed hazardous materials cases related to soil and groundwater contamination that occurred from former leaking underground storage tanks that were associated with the former Spreckels Sugar facility, now the site of the Clark Pacific facility: (1) former tanks between the former maintenance shop and plate shop (Case No. T0611345442 closed in 2008); (2) former tanks at the former farm shop (Case No. T10000000458 closed in 2010); and (3) former tanks at the former agricultural repair shop (Case No. T0611374000 closed in 2010). Based on a review of detailed site maps showing the locations of contamination associated with these sites (SWRCB 2025), the proposed Clark Pacific utility extension alignment would avoid all three sites. No land use controls are in place for any of these three cases (SWRCB 2025). Furthermore, given the low levels of contamination that were present in 2008 and 2010 following remedial activities, natural attenuation over the last 15–17 years would have reduced the remaining constituents of concern to levels that are likely so low as to be undetectable. Finally, the primary media that was affected by the former contamination was groundwater, which was present at depths ranging from 15 to 30 feet below the ground surface (SWRCB 2025). The maximum depth of project-related excavation for the proposed utility lines would be approximately 8 feet, and therefore would not be deep enough to encounter groundwater. The other closed hazardous materials sites (George Aoki Farms and Western Wood Treating) are far enough from the proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility extension alignments such that any residual contaminants that may be present would not be encountered by project-related construction. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.8-5: For a Project Located within and Airport Land Use Plan or, where such a Plan has Not Been Adopted, within Two Miles of a Public Airport or Public Use Airport, Would the Project Result in a Safety Hazard For People Residing or Working within an Airport Land Use Plan Area As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.8-40 through 4.8-41), development planned as a part of the 2035 General Plan included a small area of potential future growth in the eastern portion of the City that is within the Sacramento International Airport Influence Area, Referral Area 2, according to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan policy boundaries. A recorded Overflight Notification is required for land uses in this area (SACOG 2013). The City requires review of consistency between the Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and all proposed major projects within the Airport Influence Area. Furthermore, 2035 General Plan Policies 3.J.1, 3.J.2, 8.D.2, and 8.D.3 would also reduce airport safety hazard areas by ensuring site-specific project consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Sacramento International Airport, discouraging the development of new airports or landing strips within one mile of the ULL, and requiring disclosure about the presence of nearby airports to prospective buyers of existing or new residential properties located within the Sacramento International Airport Influence Area. Impacts would be less than significant.

As noted above, the Watts-Woodland Airport is approximately 2.6 miles west from the one-mile area beyond the ULL, and is approximately 3 miles and 6 miles west, respectively, from the proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility extension alignments. The land areas considered in this SEIR are not within the Watts-Woodland airport

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.7-8 Draft SEIR influence area (SACOG 1993). The western boundary of the Sacramento International Airport Influence Area travels north-south through Woodland, following the western edge of the property that houses the City’s Water Pollution Control Facility (wastewater treatment plant), as shown in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Exhibit 4.8- 3 (page 4.8-11). The Sacramento International Airport Influence Area includes the eastern side of the one-mile area outside the existing ULL, which primarily consists of agricultural land but also includes an area of industrial and warehouse uses adjacent to and southwest of the Cache Creek Settling Basin. The City requires review of consistency between the Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and all proposed major projects within the Airport Influence Area to ensure compatibility; however, the extension of utility lines would not require Airport Land Use Commission review because a land use or zoning change would not occur, the utility lines would be installed underground, and tall cranes would not be required as part of the construction process. The northern and western portions of the one-mile area outside of the ULL, including the proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility extension alignments, are not within the Sacramento International Airport Influence Area. The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and there is no change to this conclusion attributable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.8-6: Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.8-42 through 4.8-43), development planned as a part of the 2035 General Plan would result in population growth, resulting in an increase in demand for emergency services, which could affect implementation of the City of Woodland Emergency Operations Plan (City of Woodland adopted in 2010, updated in 2017). The Emergency Operations Plan addresses the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with any type of natural disaster, technological incident, or state of war emergency. The 2035 General Plan includes policies that would reduce the potential impact. Policy 8.F.4 ensures that critical facilities, such as hospitals and dispatch centers, are sited in locations that have minimal exposure to flooding, seismic and geological effects, fire, and explosions. Policy 8.F.5 requires areas susceptible to hazards have emergency access and evacuation routes that are clearly marked with consistent signage. Policy 8.F.2 supports the continued coordination between the City and relevant agencies in preparing for and operating during an emergency. Policy 8.F.3 aims to improve public education and awareness of emergencies.

The City includes a grid network of local roadways that provide access to high volume highways for use in an emergency evacuation situation. Impacts would be less than significant.

All construction equipment, materials, and personnel necessary for work associated with the proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility extensions would be staged and stored within the existing respective facilities. However, during construction, temporary short-term lane closures would be required along portions of County Roads 18C, 98, and 101 as shown in Figure 3.1-2 and Figure 3.1-3 of this SEIR and discussed in detail below.

If emergency evacuation were required in the vicinity of the proposed Clark Pacific utility extension alignment, short-term and temporary lane closures along County Road 18C and County Road 101 would have no effect on evacuation because the temporary one-lane roadway could accommodate the limited traffic from the few rural residences and businesses in the project vicinity. Emergency evacuation traffic in the vicinity of County Road 101 and Churchill Downs Avenue would be unaffected because all lanes would be available on both of these roadways to the south and west, respectively. Furthermore, emergency vehicle access for first responders would

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.7-9 Impact Analysis – Hazards and Hazardous Materials still be available at all times through the temporary one-lane construction closure areas by using the other open lane. Therefore, construction of the proposed Clark Pacific utility extension alignment would have no impact related to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

If an emergency evacuation were required in the vicinity of the proposed Bayer utility extension alignment, County Road 98 would provide one of the primary northbound means of vehicular access to Interstate (I) 5 (north of Woodland) as well as southbound access to I-80 (southwest of Davis). County Road 98 also provides vehicular access to a network of other east-west roadways within and near Woodland (such as Main Street, West Gibson Road, and County Road 25A) that in turn provide access to State Route 113 (a major north-south highway between I-5 and I-80). However, the City requires that Traffic Control Plans must be prepared, and then submitted for review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer (City of Woodland 2025). Traffic Control Plans must provide for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians through or around construction activities while also protecting the construction workers and equipment. The City requires that all Traffic Control Plans comply with the California Department of Transportation’s (CalTrans) California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, Part 6 - Temporary Traffic Control, Revision 9 (CalTrans 2025). Furthermore, there is a grid network of other north-south roadways south of Main Street (for example, Ashley Avenue and Cottonwood Street) that could also be used in the event of an evacuation, in addition to County Road 98.

The 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR found this impact to be less than significant and given the analysis above of the proposed project there is no change to this conclusion attributable to the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.8-1 Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality

4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Section 4.9, “Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality,” of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.9-1 through 4.9-63) described existing conditions with regard to surface water and groundwater resources related to implementation of the General Plan, summarized the regulatory and planning framework, and analyzed the impacts on surface water and groundwater resources associated with implementation of the General Plan. The section also discussed and evaluated the potential environmental impacts from flooding in the Planning Area that may be associated with implementation of the General Plan. Where appropriate, mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts were identified. That information is hereby incorporated by reference into this SEIR.

This section provides updated information related to the environmental setting, the regulatory setting, and potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to the proposed project, where applicable.

4.8.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

REGULATORY SETTING
The regulatory setting in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR was presented on pages 4.9-16 through 4.9-31. The regulatory setting is updated in the material that follows.

UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
The “Regulatory Setting” in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR remains primarily unchanged as it relates to potential effects associated with the proposed project and is hereby incorporated by reference (Section 4.9.3, pages 4.9-16 through 4.9-31). Updates to State and local laws, regulations, and ordinances since the certification of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR are briefly summarized below.

Basin Plan
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan) identifies the beneficial uses of water bodies and provides water quality objectives and standards for waters of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River hydrologic regions, which include waters near Woodland. The Basin Plan was updated in 2019 (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB] 2019).

Statewide Stormwater General Permits
The SWRCB’s National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated With Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) was amended in 2022 (Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES Permit No. CAS000002). The Construction General Permit is applicable to all construction activities that would disturb one acre of land or more. Construction activities subject to the general construction activity permit include clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation.

Dischargers are required to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters. The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of associated BMPs that are specifically designed to reduce construction-related erosion (SWRCB 2022).

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-2 Draft SEIR The SWRCB’s NPDES Waste Discharge Requirements For Storm Water Discharges From Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Phase II Small MS4 General Permit), Water Quality Order 2013-0001-DWQ was amended in 2019 (Order WQ 2019-0009-EXEC). The Phase II permit program applies to small municipality areas of less than 100,000 persons and establishes NPDES permit requirements for operation of municipal systems that are designed or used to collect or convey storm water (including storm drains, pipes, ditches, etc.) that is discharged to waters of the United States (SWRCB 2019).

The Statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, Order 2014-0057- DWQ NPDES Permit CAS000001, was amended in 2018 (WQ 2018-0028-DWQ) (Industrial General Permit), and implements the federally required stormwater regulations in California for stormwater associated with industrial activities discharging to waters of the United States. The Industrial General Permit regulates discharges associated with 9 federally defined categories of industrial activities, such as cement and fertilizer manufacturing, mining, hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities, landfills, wastewater treatment plants, and recycling facilities (SWRCB 2018). The City’s Water Pollution Control Facility (wastewater treatment plant) operates under an NPDES permit for waste discharge that specifies treatment measures prior to discharge of tertiary treated wastewater into the Tule Canal. The permit was most recently updated in 2020 (Central Valley RWQCB 2020).

Waste Discharge Requirements for Construction Dewatering The Central Valley RWQCB has adopted a general NPDES permit for short-term discharges of small volumes of wastewater that is clean or relatively pollutant-free that pose little or no threat to water quality from a variety of types of activities including construction dewatering. Permit conditions for the discharge of these types of wastewater to surface waters are specified in the Waste Discharge Requirements for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water, which was amended in 2024 (Order No. R5-2022-0006-03 as amended by Order No. R5-2024- 0044, NPDES No. CAG995002, Central Valley RWQCB 2024).

Senate Bill (SB) 5, Urban Level of Flood Protection and the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan SB 5 enacted the Central Valley Flood Protection Act of 2008. SB 5 required DWR and the Central Valley Flood Protection Board to prepare and adopt a Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP). The CVFPP was prepared by DWR and adopted in 2012, and is updated every 5 years as required by the Act. The CVFPP guides the State’s participation in managing flood risk in areas protected by the State Plan of Flood Control. The CVFPP recommends actions and policies informed by engagement with stakeholders and partners and prioritizes investments over a 30-year horizon. The most recent CVFPP update in 2022 (DWR 2022) evaluates progress made since passage of major State bonds in 2007 and recommends future management actions led by State, federal, and local partners to continue implementation of the CVFPP. The 2022 CVFPP Update focuses on three key themes: climate resilience, performance tracking, and alignment with other state efforts.

Lower Cache Creek Flood Risk Management Project
Cache Creek poses a significant flood risk from both 100- and 200-year flooding to portions of the City of Woodland. Cache Creek carries water from Clear Lake into the Cache Creek Settling Basin (north and east of I-5) and eventually into the Yolo Bypass. The creek has a long history of flooding; it has overtopped its banks and levees more than 20 times since 1900. The existing levees along Cache Creek only provide approximately a 10- year level of flood protection. The City is engaged in partnerships with the USACE, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, and DWR to identify projects to reduce that risk. In 2021, the USACE completed its feasibility

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.8-3 Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality study and certified the associated Environmental Impact Statement that evaluated options to provide 100-year flood protection to Woodland. The approved Lower Cache Creek Flood Risk Management plan includes construction of nearly 5.6 miles of new levee and seepage berms, improving about 2.3 miles of existing levee by installing seepage cutoff walls, developing up to 5.6 miles of draining channel, constructing a 3,000-foot-long inlet weir, and installing an estimated four closure structures across roads and railways. The new flood risk management features would substantially reduce the likelihood of flooding in the City of Woodland. The USACE Chief’s Report recommending implementation of the project was signed in 2021, and the USACE is in the process of procuring congressional authorization and funding. The Lower Cache Creek Flood Risk Management Project is a partnership between USACE, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, and the City of Woodland (USACE 2021). However, during the March 2024 election, Measure M, which would have allowed the City to accept state and federal funding and amend the City’s zoning code to proceed with the project, failed to pass by the voters. The City is continuing to engage with the USACE, CVFPP, and DWR to study a flood risk management project that consistent with the results of the Measure M ballot measure. The study would consider both levee raise in place and an option with setback levels along Cache Creek.

City of Woodland Flood Risk Management Project
In 2021, the City certified an EIR and adopted the proposed Woodland Flood Risk Management Project, which would expand on the USACE’s Lower Cache Creek Flood Risk Management Project by adding measures to reduce flood stages and duration of flooding for agricultural properties north of the City. Actions for these properties could include raising or flood-proofing structures, establishing flow easements, and subsidizing flood insurance. The project would also comply with California’s flood protection requirements under SB 5 to provide a 200-year level of protection (City of Woodland Community Development Department 2025). However, during the March 2024, Measure M, which would have allowed the City to accept state and federal funding and amend the City’s zoning code to proceed with the project, failed to pass by the voters.

City of Woodland Municipal Code
There have been several updates to the numbering of local municipal codes since the certification of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, but these changes do not substantively alter the contents of the codes. These include:
► City Grading Ordinance, Woodland Municipal Code Title 15 Chapter 15.12, which (1) establishes standards and procedures for grading and excavation, and (2) ensures that projects will be free from harmful effects of runoff, including inundation and erosion, and that neighboring and downstream properties will be protected from drainage problems resulting from new development.
► City Wastewater Discharge and Treatment Ordinance, Title 8 Chapter 8.04 of the Woodland Municipal Code, regulates industrial discharges and requires implementation of pre-treatment measures prior to discharge. ► City Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, Title 8 Chapter 8.08 of the Woodland Municipal Code, regulates discharges into the municipal storm drain system including compliance with applicable provisions of construction and operational NPDES permit requirements. ► City Flood Management Ordinance, Title 17 Chapter 17.88 of the Woodland Municipal Code, establishes standards and procedures for development in special flood hazard areas identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-4 Draft SEIR

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is described in 2035 General Plan and CAP (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, pages 4.9-1 through 4.9-16), is current as it relates to potential effects attributable the proposed project, and is hereby incorporated by reference. As discussed in the setting (pages 4.9-1 through 4.9-5), Woodland lies within portions of four major watersheds: Sacramento River, Cache Creek, Putah Creek, and Willow Slough. Surface water in the Woodland area generally drains to the east towards the Yolo Bypass, following the Sacramento Valley topography. There are no natural surface water features within the City limits. While a variety of manmade canals in the Woodland area such as the South Fork Ditch typically serve irrigation uses, they are also used to manage runoff from rainfall during the winter. None of the manmade canals are in vicinity of the proposed Clark Pacific or Bayer utility extension alignments.

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters where the permit standards, any other enforceable limits, or adopted water quality standards are still unattained. The law requires states to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to improve the water quality of impaired water bodies. TMDLs are the quantities of pollutants that can be safely assimilated by a water body without violating water quality standards.

TMDLs are developed for impaired water bodies to maintain beneficial uses, achieve water quality objectives, and reduce the potential for future water quality degradation. The NPDES permits for stormwater discharges (for both construction and operation) must take into account the pollutants for which a water body is listed as impaired. Table 4.9-1 in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 4.9-15), provided information for several waterbodies in the vicinity of Woodland that were listed on the SWRCB’s 303(d) list in 2015 (i.e., Sacramento River, Cache Creek, and Willow Slough). The SWRCB assesses water quality data every 2 years.

The setting describes the potential for flooding in Woodland from Cache Creek to the north and northwest and the Yolo Bypass/Sacramento River system to the east. In the event of a severe storm, these water bodies can overtop creek banks and levees, or levees could fail; these flood situations are known to have occurred in the past and there are problems with the existing levees. The location of levees and the levee inundation areas are shown in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Exhibit 4.9-2 (page 4.9-9). As shown therein, northeastern areas of the City are at risk of levee inundation up to three inches and eastern areas are at risk of inundation up to 20 inches. As further detailed in the setting (page 4.9-8), typical flood hazards in Woodland generally consist of shallow sheet flooding from surface water runoff from large rainstorms with depths generally less than 2 feet. However, in larger storm events, there are large areas within the Planning Area on the north and east sides that are also affected by flooding from Lower Cache Creek. Floodplain maps published by FEMA and DWR show areas that would be inundated by 100-year and 200-year flood events, respectively. As shown in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Exhibit 4.9-3 (page 4.9-11), 45 percent of the Planning Area is located in the Cache Creek and/or Yolo Bypass 200-year floodplains. Furthermore, substantial portions of the City in the north, northeast, east, and southeast are situated within either FEMA 100-year floodplains (Special Flood Hazard Zone AE) or FEMA Zone X (areas of moderate flood hazard, usually the area between the limits of the 100‐year and 500‐year flood zones; also designates areas of shallow flooding areas with average depths of less than 1 foot or drainage areas less than 1 square mile).

Woodland is situated within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, Yolo Subbasin (DWR Groundwater Basin Number 5-21.67). The setting in the 2035 General Plan and CAP describes the features of this groundwater subbasin including the average depth to groundwater, water-bearing formations, groundwater and surface water connections, groundwater storage, groundwater quality, and subsidence (pages 4.9-5 through 4.9-7). This data was obtained from sources prior to the adopted Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.8-5 Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality

UPDATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Surface Water Resources
There are several surface water features present in the one-mile area outside the ULL. As shown in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Exhibit 4.9-1 (page 4.9-3), these include the South Fork Ditch to the west; Farmers Central Ditch to the south; Willow Slough to the southeast; Cache Creek to the north; Cache Creek Settling Basin to the northeast; and Yolo Bypass to the east. The Tule Canal and the Sacramento River are located approximately 2.3 and 3.5 miles to the east, respectively.

The proposed water and sewer utility extension alignments for the Bayer facility would be installed approximately

0.4 and 0.5 mile north and east of the South Fork Ditch. The northern end of the proposed utility extension alignment for the Clark Pacific facility would be installed approximately 0.5 mile south of Cache Creek. The surface water features (which were settling ponds for precipitated calcium carbonate) shown on 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Exhibit 4.9-1 (page 4.9-3) at the former Spreckels Sugar facility (now Clark Pacific) are no longer present; by 2014, this area had been graded flat and was being used for facility storage and operations as it is today. A remnant surface water feature encompassing approximately 14 acres is still present today along the eastern side of the Clark Pacific facility between Best Ranch Road on the north, Sugarland Ranch on the east, and County Road 18C on the south. This area provides stormwater detention during the winter rainy season, and standing water may be present throughout the year in the southeast corner near County Road 18C.

Surface Water Quality
The SWRCB’s Section 303(d) list was most recently adopted and approved by U.S. EPA in 2024. The Cache Creek Settling Basin is not on the Section 303(d) list. Cache Creek is listed as impaired for two additional constituents that have been added since 2015: pH, and dissolved oxygen. The Tule Canal (along the east side of the Yolo Bypass) is listed as impaired for boron, indicator bacteria, and salinity. The Sacramento River (from Knight’s Landing to the Delta) is listed as impaired for one additional constituent that has been added since 2015:
water temperature. Willow Slough is listed as impaired for the same two constituents that were identified in 2015:
toxicity and boron (SWRCB 2024).

Flooding
As shown in 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Exhibit 4.9-3 (page 4.9-11), the one-mile area outside the ULL to the north, east, and southeast of Woodland is within the Cache Creek and/or Yolo Bypass/Willow Slough 200- year floodplains, with potential flood depths ranging from approximately 1 foot to over 7 feet.

The proposed Clark Pacific utility extension alignment would be installed approximately 0.5 mile south/southeast of Cache Creek at the closest point (within the existing Clark Pacific facility). The proposed utility extension alignment within County Road 18C is approximately 0.75 mile southeast of Cache Creek. Based on a review of FEMA (2012) Flood Insurance Rate Maps, nearly the entire proposed Clark Pacific utility line extension would be installed within a 100-year flood hazard zone (Zone AE) (excepting only the northeast end of the utility line at the tie-in point within the Clark Pacific facility). Furthermore, the proposed Clark Pacific utility line extension along County Road 101 would be subject to 200-year flooding with depths ranging from less than 1 foot to 5 feet (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Exhibit 4.9-3 (page 4.9-11]).

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-6 Draft SEIR The northeast end of the proposed Bayer sewer extension alignment would be installed within an area classified by FEMA as Zone X—an area of moderate flood hazards (FEMA 2012). The remaining portions of the proposed Bayer sewer utility extension and all of the proposed water utility extension would not be situated within any type of flood hazard zone (FEMA 2012, 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Exhibit 4.9-3 (page 4.9-11]).

Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability
Groundwater in Woodland and the surrounding region is subject to the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), and is managed by the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency as the local Groundwater Sustainability Agency. Groundwater is managed under the adopted Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) (Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency 2022), which was approved by DWR in 2023.

DWR determined that the Yolo Subbasin is a high priority basin, but is not in a state of critical overdraft (DWR 2019). As discussed in the GSP, water resource managers in the County have been monitoring groundwater elevations since the 1950s, although the most robust data collection began in the 1970s; therefore, the Yolo Subbasin GSP is based on physical groundwater data from the years 1971 through 2018. In addition to the collection of observed data, the Yolo Subbasin GSP includes a water budget that quantifies inflows and outflows to balance resource availability with the overall goals of the water budget. Surface water and groundwater budgets were created for historical, current, and future scenarios. In the Yolo Subbasin, groundwater storage changes are positive in wet years and negative in dry years, with no significant declining trend over the past 50 years.

Historically, conjunctive management (which relies on a combination of surface water and groundwater to meet water demands) in the Yolo Subbasin has been sustainable. The GSP includes a list of existing and ongoing projects and management actions that will contribute to sustainability in the Yolo Subbasin, including additional groundwater monitoring wells, groundwater recharge projects, water conservation, and pilot projects demonstrating the benefits of regenerative agriculture (Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency 2022).

4.8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds for evaluating the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and are the same as those used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR17. These thresholds are used to evaluate potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to implementation of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, with a focus on impacts beyond those addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The proposed project would result in a significant impact related to hydrology and water quality if it would:
► violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality;

17 The thresholds of significance for hydrology and water quality impacts used in this analysis reflect the current CEQA Appendix G Environmental Checklist. While these thresholds have been updated in format and wording since adoption of the 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan (CAP) EIR, they have not substantively changed. The new Appendix G checklist threshold e) related to potential conflicts with or obstruction of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan is evaluated in the first two thresholds above. The analysis in this document continues to evaluate all hydrology and water quality issues considered in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR for consistency and a comprehensive environmental review.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.8-7 Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality ► substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a substantial lowering of the level of the local groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted); ► substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-site or off-site; ► substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site; ► create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; ► place housing within a 100- or 200-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; ► place within a 100- or 200-year flood hazard area, structures which would impede or redirect flood flows; ► expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or
► expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death or risk release of pollutants involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Contribute Stormwater Runoff that would Exceed the Capacity of Stormwater Drainage Systems—Please see Impact 4.14-3 in Section 4.14, “Utilities,” for the analysis of this issue.

Inundation By Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow—Because of the City of Woodland’s distance from the Pacific Ocean, tsunamis would not represent a hazard. The City is protected from exposure to seiches by levees on both the east and west sides of the Yolo Bypass (which lies between the city and the Sacramento River), as well as levees on the west side of the Sacramento River. In addition, the Planning Area’s topography is relatively level, ranging from 0-4 percent, and not subject to mudflow. Therefore, inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would not pose a hazard and there would be no associated risk from release of pollutants and this impact is not addressed further in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR or this SEIR.

The impact numbering in the section below corresponds to those numbers used in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR for ease of reference.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 4.9-1: Violate Water Quality Standards
As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.9-33 through 4.9-39), development planned as a part of the 2035 General Plan would result in an increase in long-term operational discharges of urban contaminants into the stormwater drainage system and ultimate receiving water bodies (including Cache Creek, the Tule Canal, the Sacramento River, and Willow Slough), as compared to existing conditions. However, the

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-8 Draft SEIR City’s Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Woodland Municipal Code Title 8 Chapter 8.08) requires implementation of BMPs where a discharge has the potential to cause or contribute to pollution or contamination of stormwater, the City’s storm drainage system, or receiving waters. To obtain coverage under the City's NPDES Phase II MS4 permit, applicable projects within the City of Woodland are required to comply with the City's Post Construction Standard Plan (2015) to reduce post-construction runoff in through the incorporation of BMPs, Low Impact Development (LID) features, and hydromodification management techniques. Industrial or commercial facilities require appropriate NPDES permits/waste discharge requirements, and implementation of BMPs consistent with the California Stormwater Quality Association’s (CASQA) BMP Handbooks (CASQA 2025), including annual reporting of any structural control measures and treatment systems. Also, the SWRCB’s Industrial Pretreatment Program would apply to certain facilities in accordance with State and federal requirements. In addition, compliance with General Plan Policies 5.H.1, 5.H.6,

5.H.10, 5.I.1, 5.I.2, 5.I.4, 5.I.6, 5.I.8, 5.J.5, 7.A.1, 7.A.4, 8.E.1, 8.E.2, 8.E.3, 8.E.4, 8.E.5, and 8.E.6 would reduce impacts from transport of pollutants in stormwater during operation of new land uses. Compliance with these federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies would protect surface water and groundwater quality and therefore new development would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Central Valley RWQCB 2019). Impacts were determined to be less than significant following implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-1, which required a minor change to the language of 2035 General Plan Policy 5.I.4 clarifying that low impact development runoff requirements were intended to reduce runoff rates, filter out pollutants, and facilitate groundwater infiltration.

The proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility lines would be installed underground; therefore, the proposed project would not result in any long-term operational stormwater water quality impacts and would not affect the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems. In terms of long-term facility operations, the existing source of potable and processing water for Bayer facility operations is groundwater, which is high in nitrates, boron, as well as other constituents of concern (e.g., hexavalent chromium). The groundwater is pumped via existing wells and requires treatment to meet the U.S. EPA drinking water guidelines as well as extensive buffering to minimize damage to laboratory equipment and other mechanical systems. Bayer’s septic system and retention pond are also at capacity. Clark Pacific is experiencing similar issues with both the quality of well water and septic system capacity. The proposed project includes decommissioning of the on-site groundwater wells and the on-site septic systems at both facilities. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would improve drinking water quality conditions at both facilities, and would improve groundwater quality by decommissioning the existing septic systems. These impacts would be beneficial. Improvements to drinking water quality would be similar to those that could occur if other existing commercial facilities located up to one mile beyond the existing ULL, and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026, extend utilities under the proposed project through the reduction in use of groundwater wells and the decommissioning of septic systems. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Central Valley RWQCB 2019). Impacts related to water quality standards and the proposed project would not be less than significant with mitigation as reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, as the mitigation measure reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR is not required for the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.8-9 Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4.9-2: Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.9-40 through 4.9-43), construction and grading activities during development planned as a part of the 2035 General Plan could result in excess runoff, soil erosion, and stormwater discharges of suspended solids and increased turbidity. Such activities could mobilize other pollutants from project construction sites as contaminated runoff to on-site and ultimately off-site drainage channels. Many construction-related wastes have the potential to degrade existing water quality. Construction activities that are implemented without mitigation could violate water quality standards or cause direct harm to aquatic organisms. However, a grading and drainage plan must be submitted to the City in support of the grading permit application. The plan must incorporate stormwater pollution control to reduce construction-related runoff from the project site. Projects that disturb more than 1 acre of land must apply for coverage and comply with the requirements in the SWRCB’s Construction General Permit, including the preparation of a SWPPP. A SWPPP must identify the BMPs that would be employed to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction- related pollutants, such as petroleum products, solvents, paints, and cement, that could contaminate nearby surface water and groundwater resources. All NPDES permits also have inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements to ensure that BMPs are implemented according to the SWPPP and are effective at controlling discharges of stormwater-related pollutants. The 2035 General Plan Policy 5.I.5 prohibits grading activities during the rainy season, unless adequately mitigated, to avoid sedimentation of storm drainage facilities. The 2035 General Plan Policy 7.A.4 requires the use of feasible and practical BMPs and promotes LID features to protect receiving waters from the adverse effects of construction activities and urban and agricultural runoff. Compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including acquisition of appropriate regulatory permits and preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and BMPs, along with 2035 General Plan policies, would reduce potential impacts related to erosion and water quality during construction and would ensure that construction of new development would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Central Valley RWQCB 2019). Impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-1, which required a minor change to the language of 2035 General Plan Policy 5.I.4 clarifying that low impact development runoff requirements were intended to reduce runoff rates, filter out pollutants, and facilitate groundwater infiltration.

Construction of the proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility lines would disturb more than 1 acre of land.

Therefore, the project applicants would be required to prepare a SWPPP and implement BMPs that are specifically designed to reduce construction-related erosion and transport of sediments and other pollutants. The Construction General Permit also requires preparation of a spill prevention plan as part of the SWPPP.

Construction techniques that could be implemented to reduce the potential for stormwater runoff may include minimizing site disturbance, controlling water flow over the construction site, stabilizing bare soil, and ensuring proper site cleanup. BMPs that could be implemented to reduce erosion may include silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, geofabric, trench plugs, terraces, water bars, soil stabilizers, and re- seeding and mulching to revegetate disturbed areas. In addition, as required by the City of Woodland Municipal Code Title 15 Chapter 15.12, the project applicants must also prepare a grading and drainage plan for City approval, as part of the grading permit application, that must incorporate stormwater pollution control to reduce construction-related runoff from the project site. The erosion and sediment control plan must contain appropriate site-specific construction site BMPs, the rationale used for selecting or rejecting BMPs, a quantification of expected soil loss where necessary, a list of applicable permits directly associated with applicable grading activity, and evidence that those permits have been obtained. BMPs must be implemented to the satisfaction of the City in order to ensure that the discharge of pollutants from a construction site will be effectively prohibited and

AECOM General Plan Amendment
Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality 4.8-10 Draft SEIR will not cause or contribute to a condition of pollution or to an exceedance of water quality standards. The 2035 General Plan Policy 5.I.5 prohibits grading activities during the rainy season, unless adequately mitigated, to avoid sedimentation of storm drainage facilities. As described above in Chapter 3, “Project Description,” project- related construction would take place within a single construction period during May through November, and therefore would not occur during the winter rainy season. These types of construction-related water quality impacts would be similar to those that could occur if other existing commercial facilities located up to one mile beyond the existing ULL, and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026, extend utilities under the proposed project because of the likely disturbance of more than 1 acre of land and the installation of underground utilities.

Compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including acquisition of appropriate regulatory permits and preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and BMPs, along with 2035 General Plan Policies 5.I.5 and 7.A.4, would reduce potential impacts related to erosion and water quality during construction and would ensure that construction of utilities would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Central Valley RWQCB 2019). Impacts related to construction-related water quality impacts and the proposed project would not be less than significant with mitigation as reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, as the mitigation measure reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR is not required for the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.9-3: On-Site and Downstream Erosion and Sedimentation and Alteration of Drainage Patterns As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.9-43 through 4.9-47), development and land use changes consistent with the 2035 General Plan would increase the amount of impervious surfaces, thereby increasing surface runoff. This increase in surface runoff would result in an increase in both the total volume and the peak discharge rate of stormwater runoff, and therefore could result in greater potential for erosion, sedimentation, and hydromodification. However, implementation of the policies and actions in the 2035 General Plan, combined with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies that require implementation of LID technologies, BMPs, and hydromodification management techniques to protect receiving water quality, mitigate excessive runoff, and mimic the runoff of a natural environment, would substantially reduce the level of impact.

Impacts were determined to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-1, which required a minor change to the language of 2035 General Plan Policy 5.I.4 clarifying that low impact development runoff requirements were intended to reduce runoff rates, filter out pollutants, and facilitate groundwater infiltration.

The proposed Bayer utility lines would be installed within the right-of-way of County Road 98, and within flat agricultural fields that are part of the Bayer facility. The proposed Clark Pacific utility lines would be installed within the right-of-way of County Roads 101 and 18C, and along the west side of the paved Clark Pacific facility.

Other existing commercial facilities located up to one mile beyond the existing ULL, and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026, would likely extend utilities within the right-of-way of existing public roads or through flat agricultural fields because connections to existing water, wastewater, and recycled water infrastructure would be needed and they are located within and adjacent to existing roads and because the majority of the land within one mile of the existing ULL is flat agricultural land. Therefore, project-related alteration of existing drainage patterns would not occur. For the same reasons described in detail in Impacts 4.9-1 and 4.9-2 above, the proposed project would not result in substantial on-site or downstream erosion and sedimentation. Impacts related to erosion and sedimentation and the proposed project would not be less than significant with mitigation as reported in the 2035

General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 4.8-11 Impact Analysis – Hydrology and Water Quality General Plan and CAP EIR, as the mitigation measure reported in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR is not required for the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR.

Impact 4.9-4: Interference with Groundwater Recharge or Substantial Depletion of Groundwater Supplies As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (pages 4.9-47 through 4.9-50), the major groundwater recharge areas in the vicinity of Woodland are the Sacramento River and other active stream channels in the County such as Cache Creek and Willow Slough. Groundwater recharge also occurs from rainfall infiltrating through the soil to the aquifer. When new urban infrastructure (e.g., buildings, roads, parking areas) is built on top of a soil with a high infiltration rate, it can result in a reduction in groundwater recharge. New development in existing rural areas associated build-out of the 2035 General Plan would result in a net increase in impervious surfaces, with an associated potential reduction in groundwater recharge potential. However, most soils within the City’s Planning Area are loams and clays, which typically have a low infiltration rates. As discussed in the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (page 4.9-48), the City is a participant in the Woodland-Davis Regional Water Supply Project, which provides Woodland with direct use of surface water, as well as the ability to store some of the treated surface water in the aquifer during low water demand months to be recovered and distributed to customers during high water demand months under the City’s aquifer storage and recovery program. Furthermore, implementation of 2035 General Plan Policies 5.G.4, 5.G.5, 7.A.1, 7.A.2, and 4.C.12 would help preserve the minimal groundwater recharge potential of the Planning Area through the implementation of LID techniques and encourage water conservation/demand management. Impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would not result in the creation of any new impervious surfaces, and therefore would not impede groundwater recharge. Currently there are two groundwater wells at Bayer and three groundwater wells at Clark Pacific. One of the groundwater wells at Bayer would be decommissioned, and two of the groundwater wells at Clark Pacific would be decommissioned. Water supply in the future would be provided by the City conveyed by new underground utility pipelines. As noted above, the City participates in the Woodland-Davis Regional Water Supply Project, which provides Woodland with direct use of treated surface water from the Sacramento River. The City has indicated that it has sufficient surface water supplies available to meet the Bayer and Clark Pacific water demands in all water year types (see Impact 4.14-4 in Section 4.11, Utilities of this SEIR).

Table 3.3-2 in Chapter 3, “Project Description,” provides a summary of anticipated current and future annual potable water demand for the Bayer and Clark Pacific facilities that would be satisfied by City surface water as part of the proposed project. In addition to City-supplied surface water for potable water needs, Clark Pacific would also use non-potable recycled water (supplied by the City) for processing purposes, instead of pumping groundwater from the existing on-site water supply wells. Bayer would use the potable water supplied by the City for both drinking water and process water demands. Although the total water demands from both facilities could increase slightly over time as shown in Table 3.3-2, the use of recycled water by Clark Pacific would reduce the project’s overall water demands by an estimated 32–48 AFY. Furthermore, because the existing groundwater at both facilities requires treatment to meet the U.S. EPA drinking water guidelines as well as buffering to minimize damage to laboratory equipment and other mechanical systems, eliminating the groundwater pumping would reduce effects related to groundwater quality and would result in an overall reduction in the volume of groundwater currently pumped by the two existing facilities. In 2022, the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency adopted the Yolo Subbasin GSP, which was approved by DWR in 2023. As explained in the Yolo Subbasin GSP, groundwater in the basin is managed through conjunctive use, which includes a mix of both surface water and