KXPR RADIO TOWER USE PERMIT

Transcription

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Control Number: PLNP2012-UPP-00035
State Clearinghouse Number: 2012062051
August 10, 2012
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW DIVISION
827 7TH STREET, ROOM 220
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
1st District:
Phil Serna
2nd District:
Jimmie Yee
3rd District:
Susan Peters
4th District:
Roberta MacGlashan
5th District:
Don Nottoli
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
Bradley J. Hudson, County Executive
PREPARED BY
Division of Environmental Review and Assessment
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Control Number: PLNP2012-UPP-00035
State Clearinghouse Number: 2012062051
This Environmental Impact Report has been prepared pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code Division 13). An
Environmental Impact Report is an informational document which, when this
Department requires its preparation shall be considered by every public agency prior to
its approval or disapproval of a project. The purpose of an Environmental Impact Report
is to provide public agencies with detailed information about the effect that a proposed
project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which any adverse effects of
such a project might be minimized; and to suggest alternatives to such a project.
Prepared by the
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT
www.DERA.saccounty.net
827 7TH STREET, ROOM 220
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
County Executive
Board of Supervisors
Bradley J. Hudson
County of Sacramento
Phillip R. Serna, District 1
Jimmie Yee, District 2
Susan Peters, District 3
Roberta MacGlashan, District 4
Don Nottoli, District 5
August 10, 2012
TO: All Interested Parties
SUBJECT:
DRAFT EIR FOR “KXPR RADIO TOWER USE PERMIT”
(CONTROL NO: PLNP2012-UPP-00035)
The subject Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is attached for your review and comment.
Reviewers should focus on the sufficiency of the DEIR in discussing possible impacts upon the
environment, ways in which adverse effects might be minimized, and alternatives to the proposed
Project. Comments on the Project (e.g. recommendations for approval or denial, concerns about
what the Project proposes to do, etc.) should be directed to the Sacramento County Department of
Community Development, Planning Division (827 7th St, Room 230, Sacramento, CA 95814) and/or
the Sacramento County Planning Commission and the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
(Clerk of the Board, 700 H Street, Suite 2450, Sacramento, CA 95814).
Reviewers who wish to comment on the adequacy of this DEIR are urged to submit written
comments to this office by September 10, 2012. Failure to do so will not preclude your right to testify
at the public hearing before the Sacramento County Planning Commission. The first Sacramento
County Planning Commission hearing on the Project will be held in the Board of Supervisors
Chambers, at 700 H Street in Sacramento, but the date has not been scheduled at this time. A
notice of the date and time of the public hearing will be provided to all property owners within 500
feet by the hearing body authorized to conduct the public hearing for the proposed project.
Interested individuals not within this radius should contact the Clerk of the Board
(http://www.sccob.saccounty.net/pages/plan.html) to be placed on the hearing notice mailing list.
Interested individuals may also check the materials for upcoming hearings on the website of the
Clerk of the Board by selecting the County and Community Planning Commissions link, and then the
County Planning Commission Meetings link.
For questions and comments on this environmental document, please contact Michelle Nagao or
Todd Smith of this office at 874-7914.
Sincerely,
Catherine Hack,
Environmental Coordinator
Environmental Review and Assessment
P:\2012\12-00035 KXPR Radio Tower Use Permit\Env Docs\DEIR\12-00035 EIR cover letter.doc
827 7th Street, Room 220  Sacramento, California 95814  phone (916) 874-7914  fax (916) 874-8343  www.saccounty.net
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................. 1 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS EIR .................................................................................. 18 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .................................................... 19 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 1-1 PROJECT LOCATION.................................................................................................... 1-1 PROJECT PROPONENTS............................................................................................... 1-1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................... 1-5 PROJECT PROPOSAL .................................................................................................. 1-7 2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT................................................... 2-1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 2-1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ 2-1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 2-2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................. 2-5 IMPACT ANALYSIS: ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ................................. 2-9 IMPACT ANALYSIS: ALTERNATIVE 2 – GRANT LINE ROAD SITE .................................... 2-11 IMPACT ANALYSIS: ALTERNATIVE 3 – RANCH KNOLL SITE .......................................... 2-16 IMPACT ANALYSIS: ALTERNATIVE 4 – RANCH HOUSE ALTERNATIVE SITE..................... 2-23 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ............................................................. 2-28 3 LAND USE ................................................................................................................ 3-1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 3-1 LAND USE SETTING .................................................................................................... 3-1 REGULATORY SETTING................................................................................................ 3-4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA .............................................................................................. 3-6 IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 3-7 4 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................... 4-1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 4-1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................... 4-1 REGULATORY SETTING................................................................................................ 4-4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA .............................................................................................. 4-9 IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 4-9 TOC - 1
Table Of Contents
5 PUBLIC SAFETY ...................................................................................................... 5-1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 5-1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................... 5-1 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................................................................................... 5-4 IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 5-5 6 VISUAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................. 6-1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 6-1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................... 6-1 REGULATORY SETTING................................................................................................ 6-8 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 6-10 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................ 6-11 IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 6-11 7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... 7-1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 7-1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................... 7-1 REGULATORY SETTING................................................................................................ 7-1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA .............................................................................................. 7-6 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 7-7 IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 7-7 8 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 8-1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 8-1 CULTURAL RESOURCES BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 8-1 CULTURAL RESOURCES SETTING ................................................................................. 8-3 CULTURAL RESOURCES REGULATORY SETTING ............................................................ 8-8 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 8-13 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................. 8-15 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................ 8-17 IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 8-19 9 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND THEIR DISPOSITION ............................................. 9-1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED ..................................................... 9-1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH COULD BE AVOIDED WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION
MEASURES ................................................................................................................. 9-1 TOC - 2
Table Of Contents
EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ..................................................................... 9-3 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ................................................................. 9-19 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 10-1 TOC - 3
Table Of Contents
LIST OF PLATES
PLATE PD -1: REGIONAL PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................. 1-2 PLATE PD -2: PROJECT LOCATION AND VICINITY ............................................................. 1-3 PLATE PD -3: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF PROJECT LOCATION AND VICINITY (DATED 2009) . 1-4 PLATE PD -4: ZONING MAP ............................................................................................ 1-6 PLATE PD -5: PROJECT SITE – OVERVIEW ...................................................................... 1-8 PLATE PD -6: PROJECT SITE PLANS............................................................................... 1-9 PLATE PD -7: PROJECT SITE PLANS (OVER AERIAL PHOTO) .......................................... 1-10 PLATE PD -8: TOWER LOADING GRAPHIC ..................................................................... 1-11 PLATE PD -9: ANCHOR GROUNDING (TYPICAL) ............................................................. 1-12 PLATE PD -10: LATTICE TOWER (TYPICAL) ................................................................... 1-13 PLATE ALT -1: ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR PROPOSED RADIO TOWER ................................. 2-3 PLATE ALT -2: GRANT LINE ROAD ALTERNATIVE SITE .................................................... 2-7 PLATE ALT -3: RANCH KNOLL AND RANCH HOUSE ALTERNATIVE SITES ........................... 2-8 PLATE ALT -4: MATHER AIRPORT CLUP...................................................................... 2-13 PLATE ALT -5: RANCH HOUSE ALTERNATIVE SITE ........................................................ 2-27 PLATE LU -1: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREAS3-2 PLATE LU -2: ZONING MAP ............................................................................................ 3-3 PLATE AG -1: WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT MAP............................................................ 4-2 PLATE AG -2: FARMLAND MAP ...................................................................................... 4-3 PLATE AG -3: AERIAL APPLICATION FLIGHT PATHS....................................................... 4-12 PLATE PS -1: EXISTING OBSTACLES FOR FIXED WING AERIAL APPLICATIONS ................... 5-7 PLATE PS -2: TOWER FALL ZONE (500-FOOT RADIUS) ................................................... 5-12 PLATE VR -1: AERIAL PHOTO OF THE SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE .................................... 6-2 PLATE VR -2: PHOTO SIMULATION (VIEW FROM THE EAST) .............................................. 6-4 TOC - 4
Table Of Contents
PLATE VR -3: PHOTO SIMULATION (VIEW FROM THE WEST) ............................................. 6-5 PLATE VR -4: PHOTO SIMULATION (VIEW FROM THE SOUTH) ............................................ 6-6 PLATE VR -5: PHOTO SIMULATION (VIEW FROM THE NORTH) ............................................ 6-7 PLATE VR -6: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED SCENIC ROADWAYS...................................... 6-9 PLATE VR -7: FOUR (4) EXISTING 399 FEET TALL AM RADIO TOWERS ........................... 6-20 PLATE VR -8: VIEW OF EXISTING 399-FOOT TALL AM RADIO TOWERS AT A DISTANCE OF
ONE MILE ............................................................................................................. 6-21 PLATE SI -1: PROJECT SITE PLANS (OVER AERIAL PHOTO) ............................................... 9-6 PLATE SI -2: FEMA 1988 FLOOD ZONE MAP .................................................................. 9-9 TOC - 5
Table Of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ....................................... 3 TABLE BR-1: SWAINSON’S HAWK FORAGING HABITAT VALUE BY ZONING CATEGORY ..... 7-15 TABLE CR-1: CATEGORIES OF CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................... 8-1 TABLE SI-1: SMAQMD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS....................................................... 9-7 TABLE SI-2: GREENHOUSE GAS SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS, IN METRIC TONS ............... 9-18 TOC - 6
Table Of Contents
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A ARBORIST REPORT ...................................................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B KXPR RADIO TOWER SWHA SURVEY .......................................................... B-1 APPENDIX C USFWS GUIDANCE ON SITING TOWERS_SEPT2000 ..................................... C-1 TOC - 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The subject of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is a project known as KXPR
Radio Tower Use Permit. The project is located at 13333 Kiefer Boulevard, on the
northeast side of Kiefer Boulevard and approximately 430 feet north of Jackson
Highway in the Cosumnes community. The project site is south of the Kiefer Landfill
and just north of Deer Creek.
The proposed project consists of a request for a use permit to allow an FM radio
broadcasting facility consisting of a 500-foot tall tower and equipment building on
approximately 1.6 acres of a larger 268± acre site in the AG-80 (Agricultural) zone. The
500-foot tower will be approximately 42 inches in diameter and will be supported by guy
wires anchored at three locations around the tower. The three anchors will be located
325 feet from the base of the tower. The disturbed area will be approximately 34,162
square feet, or 0.78± acres (includes road, base of tower, equipment building and
anchor points). There will be three FM radio antennas, two cellular arrays and six
microwave dishes on the tower.
The following environmental impact and mitigation summary table (Table ES-1:
Executive Summary of Impacts and Mitigation on page 3) briefly describes the project
impacts and the mitigation measures recommended to eliminate or reduce the impacts.
The residual impact after mitigation is also identified. Immediately following the
summary table is a description of mandated mitigation monitoring requirements (see
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program on page 19).
Impacts associated with Land Use, Agricultural Resources, Public Safety, Visual
Resources, Biological Resources, and Cultural Resources can be found in the specific
topic chapters in the remainder of this report. The chapters provide detailed
discussions of each of the identified impacts and if applicable, mitigation measures to
reduce any identified significant impacts.
Impacts associated with Traffic and Circulation, Air Quality, Hydrology and Drainage,
Geology and Soils, Erosion and Grading, Exposure to Hazardous Materials, Noise,
Public Services, and Climate Change were considered less than significant. These
specific topics were not given individual chapters since impacts associated with these
sections were found to be less than significant. Pursuant to Section 15128 of the CEQA
Guidelines, for effects not found to be significant, an EIR shall contain a statement
briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were
determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.
The analysis of the above topics found to be less than significant is provided in the
Summary of Impacts Chapter.
Other impacts related to Land Use, Agricultural Resources, Visual Resources,
Biological Resources and Public Safety were also found to be less than significant.
KXPR Radio Tower Use Permit DEIR
1
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
This report has identified project-related impacts associated with Cultural Resources,
Public Safety and Biological Resources as potentially significant, which could be
reduced to a less than significant level through inclusion of recommended mitigation
measures.
This report identifies significant and unavoidable impacts related to the introduction of
an incompatible use in the vicinity of existing agricultural uses (Agricultural Resources).
2
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Table ES-1: Executive Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation 1
Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
The proposed project does not conflict with the goals and
policies of the Sacramento County General Plan Land Use
Element.
LS
None Required
LS
The proposed project does not conflict with the Sacramento
County Zoning Code.
LS
None Required
LS
The proposed project will not result in the diversion or
disruption of an established community.
LS
None Required
LS
The proposed project will not conflict with any existing
habitat conservation plan and it will not conflict with any
foreseeable future habitat protection plan.
LS
None Required
LS
The proposed project does not result in removal of a major
obstacle to development and growth; therefore, the
proposed project will not induce substantial population
growth.
LS
None Required
LS
The proposed project, in combination with other cumulative
development in the area will not result in a cumulative land
use impact.
LS
None Required
LS
LAND USE
1
PS = Potentially Significant
S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable
3
LS = Less Than Significant
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation 1
Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
The project site is designated as Farmland of Local
Importance. The direct impact area of the project is 0.78
acres and the total project area is 1.6 acres. The proposed
project will not result in a significant loss of farmlands or
result in a significant loss of lands designated as Farmland
of Local Importance.
LS
None Required
LS
The project parcel is under an active Williamson Act
Contract and siting a radio tower on this parcel will not
result in a breach of the existing Williamson Act Contract
and will not result in a cancellation of the Williamson Act
Contract.
LS
None Required
LS
S
None Feasible
SU
Impacts
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project is considered an incompatible use in
the vicinity of existing agricultural uses. This is in conflict
with the goals and policies of the Agricultural Element of the
Sacramento County General Plan.
At its proposed location the tower is in close proximity to
active agricultural operations at Davis Ranch that rely on
aerial application. There are currently no viable alternatives
to maintaining the current yield and quality of the sweet
corn and other produce from the Davis Ranch farmlands if
aerial application is not feasible; therefore, this impact is
considered significant and unavoidable.
4
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation 1
Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
LS
None Required
LS
The proposed project will not result in cancellation of an
existing Williamson Act Contract and will not result in a
significant loss of farmlands; therefore, the project will not
have cumulative impacts as it relates to these two
agricultural resources.
The addition of the proposed project, in combination with
the existing obstacles in the area, results in a significant
cumulative effect since continued use of aerial applicators
could be hazardous to pilots. However, this impact does
not translate to a significant cumulative impact to farmlands
since Davis Ranch has the ability to plant different crops
that do not require the use of fixed wing aerial applications
and the project does not result in a physical loss of
farmlands.
PUBLIC SAFETY
The radio tower is proposed to be 500 feet tall. FAA issued
a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for the
proposed tower, provided two conditions are met. Upon
compliance with the two conditions (included as mitigation),
the project is not expected to have an adverse effect upon
the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft.
PS-1
To ensure that the proposed structure would not be a hazard to air
navigation, the applicant shall mark/light the structure in
accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2,
Obstruction Marking and Lighting and paint/red lights pursuant to
Chapter 3 (Marked), Chapter 4 and 5 (Red) and Chapter 12.
PS-2
PS
The applicant shall complete and submit to the FAA Southwest
Regional Office FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or
Alteration within five (5) days after the construction reaches its
greatest height (7460-2, Part II). Copies of completed FAA Form
7460-2 shall be submitted to the Environmental Coordinator and
Sacramento County Airport Systems.
LS
PS-3
Proof of compliance with FAA requirements above shall be
submitted to the Environmental Coordinator and Sacramento
County Airport Systems.
5
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation 1
Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Exposure of workers or the general public to radio
frequency (RF) emissions is expected to be below FCC
standards.
LS
None Required
LS
Tower collapse is highly unlikely since communications
towers are engineered to meet or exceed all requirements
of the Uniform Building Code. In the rare event that the
tower should fail, there are no structures within the tower
fall zone; tower failure will not a significant impact to people
or structures.
LS
None Required
LS
The project site is not located within a scenic vista or along
a State scenic highway; therefore the proposed project
would not result in an adverse affect on a scenic vista nor
would the project damage scenic resources within a State
scenic highway.
LS
None Required
LS
The proposed project will not substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings based on an analysis of the intactness,
vividness and unity of the project site with its surroundings.
Impacts were found to be less than significant, although it is
acknowledged that visual quality is intensely subjective. .
LS
None Required
LS
The tower will be lit with high intensity white LED strobes by
day and low intensity white LED by night; therefore, the
proposed project will not introduce substantial light that
could affect the day or nighttime views.
LS
None Required
LS
The proposed project will not conflict with the Sacramento
County General Plan’s designated scenic corridor (Latrobe
Road).
LS
None Required
LS
LS
None Required
LS
Impacts
VISUAL RESOURCES
The proposed project will not contribute to a substantial
adverse aesthetic impact.
6
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation 1
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The top of two trees located within riparian habitat along
the tributary to Deer Creek will be removed, resulting in a
loss to riparian canopy coverage. Mitigation has been
included that requires replacement equal to the acreage
lost.
BR-1
In order to compensate for the loss of 1,962 square feet of riparian
canopy (trees #70 and #74), mitigation through one of the following
measures is required prior to the issuance of a grading or other
improvement permit or building permit:
In addition, as there will be construction activities within the
riparian vegetation along the tributary, riparian habitat
protection has been included to preserve and protect the
trees in the tributary.
a.
PS
The applicant shall prepare an applicant shall prepare an
on-site re-vegetation plan for the loss of canopy area,
consistent with General Plan Policy CO-140. The revegetation plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist
or botanist that provides the species, number and location
of plantings and provides for quantifiable success criteria
and include at least three years of monitoring with an
adaptive management program. Plantings may be done
off-site within the riparian area of Deer Creek or the
tributary in order to ensure no net loss (consistent with
Policy CO-58 and CO-59). The plan shall be subject to
review and approval by the Environmental Coordinator.
b.
A sum equivalent to the replacement cost of the number
of trees that cannot be accommodated on-site may be
paid to the County’s Tree Preservation Fund or another
appropriate tree preservation fund such as Sacramento
Tree Foundation’s NATURE program.
c.
Any mitigation required by the State or federal permitting
agencies that compensates for the loss of riparian
vegetation, functions and values and that provides for a
native re-vegetation plan consistent with or exceeding the
requirements of this measure, shall be deemed sufficient
mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant
level and may be utilized in place of this measure.
LS
BR-2 Riparian Habitat Construction Protection
7
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation 1
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
For the purpose of this mitigation measure, riparian habitat is
defined as any tree located within or adjacent to the stream channel
having a diameter at breast height (dbh) of at least 6 inches, or if it
has multiple trunks of less than 6 inches each, a combined dbh of
at least 10 inches.
With the exception of the trees removed and compensated for
through Mitigation Measure BR-1, above, all riparian habitat on the
project site shall be preserved and protected as follows:
1. A circle with a radius measurement from the trunk of the
tree to the tip of its longest limb shall constitute the dripline
protection area of the tree. Limbs must not be cut back in
order to change the dripline. The area beneath the
dripline is a critical portion of the root zone and defines the
minimum protected area of the tree. Removing limbs
which make up the dripline does not change the protected
area.
2. Chain link fencing or a similar protective barrier shall be
installed one foot outside the driplines of the trees that
make up the riparian habitat prior to initiating project
construction, in order to avoid damage to the habitat and
their root system.
3. No signs, ropes, cables (except cables which may be
installed by a certified arborist to provide limb support) or
any other items shall be attached to the riparian trees.
4. No vehicles, construction equipment, mobile home/office,
supplies, materials or facilities shall be driven, parked,
stockpiled or located within the driplines of the riparian
trees.
5. Any soil disturbance (scraping, grading, trenching, and
excavation) is to be avoided within the driplines of the
riparian trees. Where this is necessary, an ISA Certified
Arborist will provide specifications for this work, including
methods for root pruning and backfill specifications.
8
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation 1
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
6. All underground utilities shall be routed outside the
driplines of riparian trees. Trenching within protected
riparian tree driplines is not permitted. If utility lines must
encroach upon the dripline, they should be tunneled or
bored under the tree under the supervision of an ISA
Certified Arborist.
7. If temporary haul or access roads must pass within the
driplines of riparian trees, a roadbed of six inches of mulch
or gravel shall be created to protect the root zone. The
roadbed shall be installed from outside of the dripline and
while the soil is in a dry condition, if possible. The
roadbed material shall be replenished as necessary to
maintain a six-inch depth.
8. Drainage patterns on the site shall not be modified so that
water collects or stands within, or is diverted across, the
dripline of the riparian trees.
9. No sprinkler or irrigation system shall be installed in such
a manner that it sprays water within the driplines of the
riparian trees.
10. Tree pruning that may be required for clearance during
construction must be performed by an ISA Certified
Arborist or Tree Worker and in accordance with the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300
pruning standards and the International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) “Tree Pruning Guidelines”.\
11. Landscaping beneath the riparian trees may include nonplant materials such as boulders, decorative rock, wood
chips, organic mulch, non-compacted decomposed
granite, etc. Landscape materials shall be kept two (2)
feet away from the base of the trunk. The only plant
species which shall be planted within the driplines of the
riparian trees are those which are tolerant of the natural
semi-arid environs of the trees. Limited drip irrigation
approximately twice per summer is recommended for the
9
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation 1
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
understory plants.
The project site contains suitable nesting habitat for raptors.
The raptors are provided protection under the California
Fish and Game Code and under the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. Mitigation has been recommended to reduce
this impact.
BR-3
PS
The project site contains suitable nesting habitat for
Swainson’s hawk, listed by the State of California as a
threatened species. A Swainson’s hawk survey found
active Swainson’s hawk nests. Mitigation has been
recommended to reduce impacts to nesting Swainson’s
hawks.
The project does not result in adverse impacts to
Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat since the project does
not consist of a change to the existing zoning (AG-80) and
the footprint of the proposed project is small (total disturbed
area is 0.78 acres, total project area is 1.6 acres).
If ground disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grubbing, or grading) is to
occur between March 1 and September 15, a survey for raptor
nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey shall
cover all potential tree and ground nesting habitat on-site and offsite up to a distance of 500 feet from the project boundary. The
survey shall occur no longer than 14 days prior to the start of
construction work (including clearing, grubbing or grading). The
biologist shall supply a brief written report (including date, time of
survey, survey method, name of surveyor and survey results) to the
Environmental Coordinator prior to ground disturbing activity. If no
active nests are found during the survey, no further mitigation will
be required. If an active nest(s) is found, the Planning and
Environmental Review Division and the California Department of
Fish and Game shall be contacted to determine appropriate
avoidance/protective measures
LS
BR-4
PS
If construction, grading, or project-related improvements are to
occur between March 1 and September 15, a focused survey for
Swainson’s hawk nests on the site and on nearby trees shall take
place within ½ mile of the project site and shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist within 14 days prior to the start of construction
work (including clearing and grubbing). If active nests are found,
the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be
contacted to determine appropriate protective measures. If no
active nests are found during the focused survey, no further
mitigation will be required.
LS
None Required
10
LS
LS
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation 1
There is a potential for lighting required by FAA for
communication towers taller than 199 feet in height to
attract or confuse birds, resulting in bird collisions with
towers. Mitigation has been recommended to reduce this
impact.
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
BR-5
PS
In order to reduce the potential of daytime bird strikes, the guy
wires supporting the towers shall be marked with an industry
accepted visual marker designed to prevent collisions by diurnally
active bird species (for guidance on markers, see Avian Power Line
Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions
with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electric
Institute, Washington, D.C. 78 pp, and Avian Power Line Interaction
Committee (APLIC). 1996 Suggested Practices for Raptor
Protection on Power Lines. Edison Electric Institute/ Raptor
Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. 128 pp. Copies can be
obtained by calling 1-800-334-5453).
LS
BR-6
The tower shall be lit consistent with the FAA Air Circular 70/74611K but shall use white light (instead of red), use the minimum
number of lights, with minimum intensity and minimum number of
flashes per minute (longest duration between flashes) as allowed
by the FAA to reduce bird collisions due to attraction/confusion.
A blackberry thicket that could be potential nesting habitat
for tricolored blackbirds is located over 750 feet north of the
project site. Construction associated with the project is not
expected to impact nesting tricolored blackbirds.
LS
None Required
LS
Construction of one of the three anchor points will require
crossing the tributary to Deer Creek. The applicant has
proposed a location along the tributary where the banks are
not steep, the vegetation is not dense and where the
tributary is generally dry during the summer months. The
applicant will place a metal sheet as a temporary bridge
across the channel to prevent impacts to the channel bed
or bank of the tributary during construction.
LS
None Required
LS
The proposed project will not result in a cumulative impact
to biological resources.
LS
None Required
LS
11
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation 1
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Surveys of the project site did not find surface prehistoric
resources within the direct impact area; however, there
remains moderate to high potential for the discovery of
subsurface prehistoric material. Mitigation has been
recommended to reduce this impact.
CR-1: Unanticipated Discoveries of Buried Cultural Resources
During Project Implementation Phases
If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are
discovered during construction, then all work must halt within a
200-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional
archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology,
shall be retained at the Applicant’s expense to evaluate the
significance of the find. If it is determined due to the types of
deposits discovered that a Native American monitor is required, the
Guidelines for Monitors/Consultants of Native American Cultural,
Religious, and Burial Sites as established by the Native American
Heritage Commission shall be followed, and the monitor shall be
retained at the Applicant’s expense.
PS
Work cannot continue within the 200-foot radius of the discovery
site until the archaeologist conducts sufficient research and data
collection to make a determination that the resource is either 1) not
cultural in origin; or 2) not potentially eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places or California Register of
Historical Resources.
LS
If a potentially eligible resource is encountered, then the
archaeologist, DERA, and project proponent shall arrange for either
1) total avoidance of the resource, if possible; or 2) test excavations
or total data recovery as mitigation. The determination shall be
formally documented in writing and submitted to DERA as
verification that the provisions of CEQA for managing unanticipated
discoveries have been met.
In addition, pursuant to Section 5097.97 of the State Public
Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety
Code, in the event of the discovery of human remains, all work is to
stop and the County Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the
12
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation 1
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure
remains are determined to be Native American, guidelines of the
Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the
treatment and disposition of the remains
CR-2: Archaeological and Native American Monitor
Prior to any land clearing, grubbing, excavation or construction
within 10 meters from the toe of the slope of any of the Barn
Complex structures, the project proponent shall retain a qualified
archaeological monitor. The archaeological monitor shall be
present during the entire duration of ground disturbance within the
identified monitoring area (i.e. within 10 meters from the toe of the
slope of all structures within the Barn Complex as identified in
PAR’s study entitled: A Systematic Archaeological Survey of the
KXPR Radio Tower Use Permit, June 2012). The project
proponent shall also notify and extend an invitation to monitor the
excavation activities to representatives from each tribal
representative identified by the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC). Notification shall occur no less than 10
business days prior to any ground disturbance. The project
proponent shall notify interested parties through certified mail
utilizing contact information as maintained by the current NAHC
tribal contact list.
In the instance that interested parties decline the invitation to
monitor construction activities or do not respond, no further tribal
monitoring is required; however, the archaeological monitor is still
required and the construction contractors shall exercise due
diligence in monitoring for unanticipated discoveries as outlined in
Mitigation Measure CR-1.
Implementation of the project may uncover human remains.
This is considered potentially significant. The
recommended mitigation will reduce this impact to less than
significant.
Implement Mitigation Measure CR-1
PS
LS
13
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation 1
Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
The proposed project does not result in an impact to known
significant cultural resources. The proposed project does
not contribute to the degradation of the overall cultural
landscape; therefore, the proposed project does not result
in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to
cultural resources.
LS
None Required
LS
LS
None Required
LS
LS
None Required
LS
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The proposed tower will be an unmanned facility.
Operation of the facility will require occasional maintenance
visitations and would not generate any daily trips. The
project will not result in a level of service standard to be
exceeded. The project will also not result in any circulation
modifications since there is an existing private access drive
that will be used for access to the site.
AIR QUALITY
The disturbed area of the proposed project is less than one
acre in size and construction of the proposed project would
only involve mass site grading (and not involve large areas
of asphalt paving, building construction or architectural
coatings), the project is not expected to result in significant
construction emissions that could exceed established
thresholds.
14
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation 1
Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
LS
None Required
LS
The project will not result in the permanent loss of
availability of a known resource and the project site is not
located in an area that has been delineated on any local
plan as having an important mineral resource.
LS
None Required
LS
The project site soils are not considered to be unstable and
they are not considered to be expansive soils. The project
will not result in exposing people or structures to substantial
adverse effects.
LS
None Required
LS
LS
None Required
LS
Impacts
DRAINAGE AND HYDROLOGY
The project site is located within FEMA Flood Zone A,
which is a special flood hazard area, subject to inundation
by the 1-percent annual chance flood event. No base flood
elevations or flood depths are shown for the area.
Structures associated with the project (equipment cabinet,
anchor points, and base of tower) must be elevated by 1.5
feet above the 100-year base flood elevation (base flood
elevation will be determined by Sacramento County
Department of Water Resources). Compliance with the
Sacramento County Floodplain Management Ordinance,
Sacramento County Water Agency Code and Sacramento
County Improvement Standards will ensure impacts are
less than significant.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
WATER QUALITY
The project will disturb less than one acre. Compliance
with the Sacramento County Stormwater Ordinance will
ensure that any runoff associated with the project will not
pollutant the stormwater system or local creeks. The
project will be required to implement erosion control and
best management practices (BMPs).
15
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation 1
Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
LS
None Required
LS
LS
None Required
LS
LS
None Required
LS
LS
None Required
LS
LS
None Required
LS
LS
None Required
LS
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The project will not involve the storage or handling of
hazardous materials. There would not be any potential for
any residents or workers near the site to be exposed to
hazardous materials.
NOISE
Operation of the project will involve the use of a generator;
however, there are no noise sensitive receptors located
near the project site (nearest residential receptor is located
0.3 miles away from the site) that could be affected by the
noise of the generator.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Energy Supply (Electric & Gas)
Minor extension of existing power will be required; however
this extension will not result in adverse environmental
impacts. In addition, the energy use of the tower will not
result in a service demand that could not be reasonably met
by the Sacramento Metropolitan Utility District (SMUD).
Public Safety Services/ Law Enforcement
The project will not result in adverse impacts to the
provision of public safety or law enforcement.
Parks and Recreation
The project will not require the provision of parks and
recreation services.
Water Supply
The project will not require the provision of potable water
services.
16
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation 1
Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
LS
None Required
LS
LS
None Required
LS
LS
None Required
LS
Sewer Service
The project site is not provided public sewer services;
however, operation of the project will not require the
provision of sewer services.
Schools
The proposed project will not require the provision of school
services; the project will not place any additional demands
on the Elk Grove Unified School District.
CLIMATE CHANGE
The proposed project will not generate daily trips and thus
will not result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled. The
project will not increase, nor decrease greenhouse gas
emissions as compared to the baseline and will not result in
any applicable significant threshold to be exceeded.
17
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS EIR
This Draft EIR uses the following terminology to describe environmental effects of the project.

Significance Criteria. A set of criteria used by the lead agency to determine at what level, or “threshold,” an impact would be
considered significant. Significance criteria used in this EIR include those that are set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, or can be
discerned from the CEQA Guidelines; criteria based on factual or scientific information; criteria based on regulatory standards of
local, state, and federal agencies; and criteria based on goals and policies identified in the Sacramento County General Plan.

Less-than-Significant Impact. A project impact is considered less than significant when it does not reach the standard of
significance and would therefore cause no substantial change in the environment. No mitigation is required for less-thansignificant impacts.

Potentially Significant Impact. A potentially significant impact is a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the
environment. Physical conditions which exist within the area will be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project.
Impacts may also be short-term or long-term. A project impact is considered significant if it reaches the threshold of significance
identified in the EIR. Mitigation measures may reduce a potentially significant impact to less than significant.

Significant Unavoidable Impact. A project impact is considered significant and unavoidable if it is significant and cannot be
avoided or mitigated to a less-than-significant level once the project is implemented.

Cumulative Significant Impact. A cumulative impact can result when a change in the environment results from the incremental
impact of a project when added to other related past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects. Significant cumulative
impacts may result from individually minor but collectively significant projects.

Mitigation. Mitigation measures are revisions to the project that would minimize, avoid, or reduce a significant effect on the
environment. CEQA Guidelines §15370 identifies 5 types of mitigation:
a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.
b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
18
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for this project
as follows:
1. It shall be the responsibility of the project applicant to reimburse the County for
all expenses incurred in the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP), including any necessary enforcement actions. The
MMRP fee for this project is $6,400.00. This fee includes administrative costs of
$800.00, which must be paid to the Division of Environmental Review and
Assessment prior to recordation of the MMRP and prior to recordation of
any final parcel or subdivision map. The remaining balance will be due
prior to review of any plans by the DERA or issuance of any building or
grading permits.
2. Until the MMRP has been recorded and the estimated MMRP fee has been paid,
no final parcel map or final subdivision map for the subject property shall be
approved; and no encroachment, grading, building, sewer connection, water
connection or occupancy permit from Sacramento County shall be approved.
19
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is on property located at 13333 Kiefer Boulevard, on the northeast side
of Kiefer Boulevard and approximately 430 feet north of Jackson Highway in the
Cosumnes community. The project site is south of the Kiefer Landfill and just north of
Deer Creek (refer to Plate PD -1, Plate PD -2 and Plate PD -3).
PROJECT PROPONENTS
APPLICANTS
Capital Public Radio, Inc.
Attn: Bob Rosenberg
OWNERS
TCP II Deer Creek South, LLC
Attn: Steve Morgan
ENGINEER
JTS Engineering
Attn: Javed Siddiqui
1-1
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
1 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Plate PD -1: Regional Project Location
= Project Location
1-2
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate PD -2: Project Location and Vicinity
1-3
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate PD -3: Aerial Photograph of Project Location and Vicinity (Dated 2009)
Tributary to
Deer Creek
Deer Creek
1-4
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project parcel (APN: 073-0070-022) is 268± acres in size. The project site is
located at the northwestern portion of the parcel. The project site encompasses
approximately 1.6 acres of the 268-acre property. The site is located south of Kiefer
Landfill, in a rural part of the County. The site is located off a gravel access road
approximately 500 feet northeast from the Kiefer Boulevard crossing over Deer Creek.
The location of the proposed tower is undeveloped and has been used for cattle
ranching/grazing operations, as well as limited farming. The area is vegetated with
native grasses. Around the site are power poles, undeveloped agricultural land and
Deer Creek (and its tributary). Deer Creek and its tributary are located to the south and
southeast and both contain dense riparian vegetation. The base of the tower will be
located in a small pasture. There will be three guy wire anchor points around the tower.
The eastern guy wire anchor point will be located on grasslands between Deer Creek
and its tributary, which are located south and southeast of the tower site. The guy wires
will have to pass through the top of the tree canopy of the tributary to reach the anchor
point. There is a small complex of barns, hay stalls and pastures around the site that
likely served the cattle ranching operations.
From the site, looking north, the Kiefer Landfill mound is visible along the horizon. The
surrounding land uses are Kiefer Landfill to the north, agricultural farm operations (e.g.,
sweet corn and pumpkin farms) to the south and southwest and cattle ranching to the
east and northeast. The surrounding land uses are agricultural and are zoned AG-40,
AG-80 and AG-120 (refer to Plate PD -4).
1-5
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate PD -4: Zoning Map
1-6
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
PROJECT PROPOSAL
REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS
A Use Permit to allow an FM radio broadcasting facility consisting of a 500-foot tall
tower and an equipment building on approximately 1.6 acres of a larger 268± acre site
in the AG-80 (Agricultural) zone. The 500-foot tower will be approximately 42 inches
in diameter and will be supported by guy wires anchored at three locations around the
pole. The anchors will be located 325 feet from the base of the tower. The disturbed
area (includes road, base of tower, equipment building and anchors points) will be
approximately 34,162 square feet, or 0.78± acres. Antennas associated with the
tower will consist of the following:

The tower will have a total of three (3) FM radio antennas located at three
different locations on the pole.
o One FM radio antenna, consisting of six (6) bays will be located at a
height between 445 – 495 feet along the tower;
o One FM radio antenna, consisting of four (4) bays, will be located at a
height between 390 – 410 feet along the tower; and
o One FM radio antenna, consisting of six (6) bays will be located at a
height between 330 – 380 feet along the tower.

The tower will have two (2) cellular arrays located at a height of 80 and 100 feet
along the tower. Each cellular array will have three faces with four (4)
antennas per face for a total of 12 antennas per cellular array (total of 24
antennas for the two cellular arrays).

The tower will have six (6) microwave dishes on the tower, located at a height
between 120-290 feet along the tower. The microwave dishes will be between
four to six feet in diameter.
Refer to Plate PD -5 through Plate PD -10 for the site plans and other project graphics.
1-7
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate PD -5: Project Site – Overview
1-8
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate PD -6: Project Site Plans
1-9
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate PD -7: Project Site Plans (Over Aerial Photo)
1-10
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate PD -8: Tower Loading Graphic
1-11
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate PD -9: Anchor Grounding (Typical)
1-12
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate PD -10: Lattice Tower (Typical)
1-13
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
In the Sacramento region, Capital Public Radio broadcasts through KXPR and KXJZ.
KXJZ provides news and talk programs to the Sacramento area and KXPR provides
classical, jazz and fine arts programming. Capital Public Radio also provides regional
and national emergency operations and serves as a clearinghouse for various art
organizations by airing public service announcements and specially programs on behalf
of these various art organizations.
The objectives of the proposed project are to provide improved service to over 2.6
million people in the Sacramento region with Capital Public Radio broadcasts by the
following objectives:
 Improving existing weak reception pockets to the 60 dbu (decibels above a
microvolt per meter) standard of practice, including, but not limited to, Land Park,
Curtis Park, midtown & downtown Sacramento, Carmichael, Foothill Farms,
Arden Arcade, Orangevale, Folsom and part of Antelope; the South Placer areas
of Roseville, Granite Bay, Rocklin, Lincoln, Loomis, Penryn, Newcastle and
Auburn, as well as the El Dorado County areas of El Dorado Hills and Cameron
Park. Additional improvement will be obtained in West Sacramento, Davis and
Woodland;
 Provide Capital Public Radio broadcast services while not interfering with
established and protected radio and TV signals and adhere to the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) rules;
 Provide these services while not interfering with the area of jurisdiction of the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or interfere with FAA communication
frequencies; and
 Serve as an emergency backup site for Capital Public Radio’s KXJZ News
Station, as well as an emergency link via KXPR.
INTENDED USE OF THE EIR
The Sacramento County Planning Commission will use the information contained in this
EIR as one of the informational tools necessary to evaluate the proposed project and
render a decision to approve or deny the requested entitlement. Responsible agencies
may also use the EIR for subsequent discretionary actions. The EIR will also serve as
an information document for the general public.
1-14
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
According to Section 15126.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines:
An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of
the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of
the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.
The purpose of this Alternatives Chapter is to identify project designs that would
mitigate, lessen, or avoid the significant effects of the proposed project. The significant
and unmitigable impact of the project is the incompatibility of the proposed tower to
existing agricultural uses. This impact is due to the location of the proposed tower;
therefore, reasonable alternatives for the proposed project would be alternative
locations which could avoid this significant and unavoidable impact.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The overall goal of the proposed project is to provide better service to over 2.6 million
people in the Sacramento region with Capital Public Radio broadcasts by the following
objectives:
 Improve existing weak reception pockets to the 60 dbu (decibels above a
microvolt per meter) standard of practice including, but not limited to, Land Park,
Curtis Park, midtown & downtown Sacramento, Carmichael, Foothill Farms,
Arden Arcade, Orangevale, Folsom and part of Antelope; the South Placer areas
of Roseville, Granite Bay, Rocklin, Lincoln, Loomis, Penryn, Newcastle and
Auburn as well as the El Dorado County areas of El Dorado Hills and Cameron
Park. Additional improvement will be obtained in West Sacramento, Davis and
Woodland.
 Provide Capital Public Radio broadcast services while not interfering with
established and protected radio and TV signals and adhere to the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) rules.
 Provide these services while not interfering within the area of jurisdiction of the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or interfere with FAA communication
frequencies.
2-1
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
2 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
 Serve as an emergency backup site for Capital Public Radio’s KXJZ News
Station, as well as an emergency link via KXPR.
RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES
To foster meaningful public discussion and informed decision making, a range of
reasonable alternatives to the proposed project is provided. This range includes the
“No Project” alternative, the purpose of which is to allow the hearing body to compare
the impact of approving the project to the impacts of not approving the proposed project.
The No Project Alternative describes what could occur under existing zoning. In many
cases, a No Project Alternative is a no-build scenario, because the existing property
designations require some form of entitlement from the County in order to develop.
Pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, an alternative must also “attain
most of the basic objectives of the project”. As noted above, the provided alternatives
must also be feasible. “Feasibility” of alternatives is described in the CEQA Guidelines,
as follows (§15364):
“Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal,
social and technological factors.
In the case of the proposed project, feasible alternatives are those that will meet the
signal needs of Capital Public Radio, but not interfere with established radio and TV
signals, nor interfere with FAA communications or flight paths. Potential sites have to
meet the objectives of the proposed project. For example, some sites are not feasible if
(a) the signal cannot reach the core areas, or if (b) the signal will be blocked by other
obstacles, or if (c) the signal interferes with existing FCC protected radio or TV signals,
or if (d) the location is within an established FAA flight pattern, or if (e) there are other
constraints such as terrain for access, availability of utilities, or availability of the land.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED
The applicant provided a list of alternative sites that Capital Public Radio considered
prior to choosing the proposed location. A map of these sites is provided in Plate ALT
-1 below.
The applicant provided the constraints for each site and explained the reason each site
was not considered as a feasible location for the proposed radio tower. The following
list follows the numeric key on the map shown in Plate ALT -1.
2-2
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate ALT -1: Alternative Sites for Proposed Radio Tower
2-3
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
1.
Clarksburg Site: This site is located in Yolo County and was to be co-located
with an AM broadcaster (Immaculate Heart Radio), but Immaculate Heart Radio
decided to choose a different site. In addition, the site was too close to Radio
KBBF. Capital Public Radio’s Aviation Consultants determined that a 500-foot
tall tower at this location would interfere with flight paths of Sacramento
Executive Airport, and the applicant was not able to locate suitable property for
placement of the radio tower.
2.
Gerber Road and Florin-Perkins Road (Elk Grove Unified School District): This
site was found to also conflict with flight paths of Sacramento Executive Airport.
3.
AT&T Tower on Calvine (Elk Grove Site): This site would require the existing
guyed tower owned by AT&T at the corner of Calvine Road and Kingsbridge
Drive to be extended in height for the FM antenna. This extension would
preclude the use of the existing tower by other tenants. However, there was
inadequate property for the extended guy wire anchors, and the project was
ultimately rejected by the land owner.
4.
Sacramento Army Depot: The FAA issued a Determination of Hazard to
Aircraft for this site due to its proximity to Mather Airport. As an alternative to
this site, the applicant considered a site on Elder Creek Road, east of South
Watt Avenue (see Number 11), but aviation consultants employed by Capital
Public Radio determined that this site was also too close to Mather Airport
departure zone and would likely not be approved by FAA for construction.
5.
Waste Management – South Landfill Site (Across from Entrance): This property
is located across from the Kiefer Landfill entrance and is owned by Sacramento
County. This land is within the proposed Kiefer Landfill Special Planning Area
(SPA) which is currently in the planning and environmental review process. The
County determined that any leases for development could not be approved until
the SPA is developed and approved.
6.
Waste Management – Northeast Landfill Site: This site is under deed
restrictions between the County of Sacramento and Wildlands, Inc. for the
development of a wetland mitigation bank. Wildlands, Inc. initially decided to
not allow use of the property for the radio tower. The County and Wildlands are
currently discussing the feasibility of leasing this site for the radio tower;
therefore, this site is now being considered as a feasible alternative location
(Alternative 2 – Ranch Knoll Alternative site).
7.
Dairyland Seed Company (North side of Deer Creek): This site is on land that
was recently purchased by Dow Chemicals from Dairyland Seed. Layouts for
the development of the site were preliminary and the applicant noted that at that
time there were no concerns voiced regarding aerial applications.
8.
Rancho Seco: The applicant considered utilizing the SMUD cooling tower
structure and adding 100 feet for the tower. However, it was determined that
2-4
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
this site was too far south for obtaining objectives of improving existing weak
signals.
9.
Garms – North Property: This site is south of the Prairie City State Vehicular
Recreational Area. This site was found to conflict with the signal of existing
stations.
10. Garms – South Property: This site was determined to be within the flight path
of Rancho Murieta Airport and was determined to be too far east to meet the
objective of improving existing weak signals.
11. Magnum Tower Company: This site is located on Elder Creek Road, east of
South Watt Avenue. This site is an alternative to the Army Depot Site. Capital
Public Radio’s Aviation Consultants determined that this site was within the
Mather Field departure zone and would likely not receive FAA approval for
construction. (Note: This site is not shown on Plate ALT -1)
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The applicant provided ultimately eleven (11) different sites that were considered for
location of the proposed radio tower; however, the sites were ultimately rejected
because many of the previously listed criteria could not be achieved.
The significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed tower to existing adjacent
agricultural uses prompted the County and the applicant to explore additional alternative
locations. Those alternatives are described below, in addition to the No Project
Alternative.
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The No Project Alternative assumes that the proposed tower is not constructed at the
project site. The prior cattle operations could resume at the site or the site could be
used for other agricultural activities (farming, grazing, etc.). The site is designated
General Agriculture on the Sacramento County General Plan Land Use Diagram and
zoned AG-80, agricultural uses, minimum 80-acre sized parcels.
2-5
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
ALTERNATIVE 2: GRANT LINE ROAD SITE
The Grant Line Road Alternative site is located on land owned by the County of
Sacramento. The location submitted by the applicant for this alternative is shown on
Plate ALT -2. The applicant has indicated that the anchors of the tower would be
beyond the 500 foot buffer from Grant Line Road that has been informally established
for the Capital Southeast Connector Project. This site is shown with the tower in the
center and the outer circle is 325 feet from the base of the tower. The guy wire anchor
points would be contained within this radius. This alternative site has the same land
use designation as the proposed project site; the site is designated General Agriculture
on the Sacramento County General Plan Land Use Diagram and zoned AG-80,
agricultural uses, minimum 80-acre sized parcels.
ALTERNATIVE 3: RANCH KNOLL SITE
The Ranch Knoll site is located on the Kiefer Bufferlands, southeast of Kiefer Landfill
and north of the proposed project site. The Kiefer Bufferlands are owned by the County
of Sacramento and are intended to serve as a buffer for the landfill against any
potentially incompatible uses. The Ranch Knoll Site is located on top of a knoll, west of
an existing ranch site (refer to Plate ALT -3). This site is shown with the tower in the
center and the outer circle is 325 feet from the base of the tower. The guy wire anchor
points would be contained within this radius. The aerial photo used in Plate ALT -3 is
from 2009; consequently, the aerial photo does not reflect that houses have been
demolished at this site and the structures that remain are for animal husbandry. This
site was previously considered by Capital Public Radio for construction of the proposed
radio tower and is listed as #6 in the Alternatives Considered but Rejected. This site
was initially rejected due to development restrictions, but is now being considered as an
alternative location. The County and applicant are currently in negotiations with
Wildlands for procurement of the site for the construction and operation of a radio tower.
This site previously received a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation by the
FAA; however, the site was abandoned in favor of the current project site due to existing
encumbrances on the land. This site would not conflict with existing FCC protected
radio signals and would be able to reach Capital Public Radio’s intended core market.
This alternative site has the same land use designation as the proposed project site; the
site is designated General Agriculture on the Sacramento County General Plan Land
Use Diagram and zoned AG-80, agricultural uses, minimum 80-acre sized parcels.
2-6
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate ALT -2: Grant Line Road Alternative Site
2-7
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate ALT -3: Ranch Knoll and Ranch House Alternative Sites
2-8
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
ALTERNATIVE 4: RANCH HOUSE SITE
The Ranch House Site is located at an existing ranch site on the Kiefer Landfill
Bufferlands. This site is shown on Plate ALT -3 with the tower in the center and the
outer circle is 360 feet from the base of the tower. The guy wire anchor points would be
contained within this radius. As noted in the description for the Ranch Knoll Site
Alternative, the homes at this ranch site have been demolished and animal husbandry
type structures remain. Since this site is located very close to the Ranch Knoll Site, it
expected that there would not be a problem with obtaining a Determination of No
Hazard to Air Navigation from FAA. In addition, this site would not conflict with existing
FCC protected radio signals and would be able to reach Capital Public Radio’s intended
core market.
This alternative site has the same land use designation as the proposed project site; the
site is designated General Agriculture on the Sacramento County General Plan Land
Use Diagram and zoned AG-80, agricultural uses, minimum 80-acre sized parcels.
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
The proposed project was found to have less than significant effects in the areas of air
quality, climate change, traffic and circulation, public services, noise, hydrology and
water quality, geology and soils, and exposure to hazardous materials. The
construction and operation of the proposed tower at any of the four alternative locations
is not expected to change the less than significant determination for the proposed
project; therefore, the analysis below does not address these impacts as they are
considered to remain less than significant.
The purpose of this section is to identify a project alternative location that could lessen
or avoid the identified significant agricultural resources impact of the proposed project.
The following analyses will therefore focus on the impacts to agricultural resources for
each alternative site, with a short analysis as it relates to public safety, visual resources,
biological resources and cultural resources.
IMPACT ANALYSIS: ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
LAND USE
Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would continue to be used for cattle
grazing, farming operations or other agricultural uses consistent with zoning. The use
of the land for agricultural uses would not be in conflict with any land use plan, such as
the Sacramento County General Plan or Zoning Code. Similar to the proposed project,
the No Project Alternative would not physically divide an established community, would
not induce substantial population growth and would not be inconsistent with any
established habitat conservation plans. The land use impacts of the No Project
Alternative would be less than significant.
2-9
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
The No Project Alternative would not introduce an incompatible use adjacent to existing
agricultural uses. Under the No Project Alternative, fixed wing aerial applications may
continue at Davis Ranch without any additional hazards. Under this alternative, there
would be no incompatible use with existing agricultural uses of Davis Ranch. The
identified significant and unavoidable impact is avoided under the No Project
Alternative.
PUBLIC SAFETY
The proposed project was found to have no significant impacts to air navigation with
inclusion of mitigation measures. Under the No Project Alternative, there would not be
an introduction of a hazard for the ag pilot doing aerial applications at Davis Ranch.
There were no significant impacts as a result of radio frequency emissions or due to the
unlikely event of tower failure. The No Project Alternative would not have any of the
above impacts since the project site would not be developed with a 500-foot radio tower
and the site would continue with agricultural activities consistent with the AG-80 zoning
of the site. The public safety impacts are less than significant under the No Project
Alternative.
VISUAL RESOURCES
The No Project Alternative would not result in the addition of a new visual obtrusion to
the existing landscape. The aesthetic components of the existing viewshed would
remain unchanged; impacts are less than significant.
The proposed project was found to have less than significant impacts after
implementation of mitigation measures related to riparian habitat, nesting raptors
(including Swainson’s hawk) and bird collisions with the proposed tower. There were no
identified impacts to the Deer Creek tributary. Under the No Project Alternative, the
project site would continue in its current state, or be used for future agricultural
operations. The use of the site for agricultural operations would not have any impacts
related to bird collisions with communication towers. Agricultural activities tend not to
adversely affect nesting raptors or Swainson’s hawk. If the site were used for grazing or
crop production, it is expected that there would not be adverse significant impacts to
riparian habitat or to Deer Creek and its tributary. The biological resources impact of
the No Project Alternative is considered less than significant.
2-10
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
IMPACT ANALYSIS: ALTERNATIVE 2 – GRANT LINE ROAD SITE
LAND USE
The land use designation of the Grant Line Road Alternative site is the same as the
proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the development of a radio tower at
this alternative location would be consistent with the Sacramento County General Plan
and Zoning Code. The Grant Line Road Alternative would not physically divide an
established community, would not induce substantial population growth and would not
be inconsistent with any established habitat conservation plans. The land use impacts
of the Grant Line Road Alternative would be less than significant.
ACCESS
The Capital Southeast Connector project is currently in the planning and environmental
review process. Grant Line Road has been identified as a potential route for the
Connector project. The exact width and alignment of the Connector project is unknown
at this time; however, for future planning purposes, a 500-foot buffer has been
informally established for future widening of Grant Line Road. The proposed project
would require an access road for maintenance. If Grant Line Road were to be an
expressway as planned through the Capital Southeast Connector Project, the
Connector Project would require limited number of driveways and intersections on Grant
Line Road. Therefore, an additional or new access road off of Grant Line Road would
not be ideal. Access could be from either Kiefer Boulevard from the north and traverse
through the property south to the site or through an access agreement with the land
owners to the south. Environmental impacts related to access would be considered
The Grant Line Road Alternative would not result in the introduction of an incompatible
use adjacent to existing agricultural operations. Under this alternative, there would not
be a loss to farm operations, acreages, production or yields since fixed wing aerial
applications would not be expected to be affected at Davis Ranch. The Grant Line
Road Alternative site is located outside of the flight path of aerial applications at Davis
Ranch. The impacts to agricultural resources would be considered less than significant
under this alternative.
There are no production crops adjacent to the Grant Line Road Alternative location.
The Grant Line Road Alternative site will avoid the identified significant and unavoidable
agricultural impact of the proposed project.
PUBLIC SAFETY
The Grant Line Road Alternative site is located beyond a 500-foot buffer from Grant
Line Road. The 500-foot buffer is to allow for the required land for the future potential
2-11
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
widening of Grant Line Road as an expressway under the Capital Southeast Connector
Project. Tower failure, although highly unlikely, has the potential to affect Grant Line
Road especially if Grant Line Road is widened as proposed in the Capital Southeast
Connector Project and either cause damage to the roadway or it may fall onto a passing
vehicle.
In addition, depending on the exact location of the base of the tower, there is a potential
for the top of the tower to land within the adjacent residential property lines. Based on a
review of aerial photos of this location, it does not appear that any homes would be in
danger. However, as noted in the Public Safety chapter, communication towers are
manufactured under rigid conditions and the design and required safety factors for
communication towers are specified in the Uniform Building Code. The tower and
foundations would be engineered to meet or exceed all requirements of the Uniform
Building Code. Tower failure is highly unlikely and under the Grant Line Road
Alternative, impacts would be considered less than significant.
The Mather Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) designates planning
boundaries (zones) around the airport for height, noise, and safety, and provides
guidelines that define compatible land uses within those zones. The intent of the CLUP
is to protect airport operations from encroachment by non-compatible land uses, as well
as protect people on the ground from the impacts of excessive noise and aircraft
accidents.
The Grant Line Road Alternative site is located approximately 5.2 miles from the closest
runway of Mather Airport (refer to Plate ALT -4). Height standards for defining
obstructions to air navigation are established by the FAA and are defined in Federal
Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, “Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace”. Section
77.23 (Standards for Determining Obstructions) of FAR Part 77 states the following:
a.
An existing object, including a mobile object, is, and a future object would be,
an obstruction to air navigation if it is of greater height than any of the following
heights or surfaces:
1. A height of 500 feet above ground level at the site of the object.
2. A height that is 200 feet above ground level or above the established
airport elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the
established reference point of an airport, excluding heliports, with its
longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height
increases in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile of
distance from the airport up to a maximum of 500 feet.
2-12
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate ALT -4: Mather Airport CLUP
Approximate
location of the
Grant Line
Road
Alternative
site.
This location
is
approximately
5.2 miles
southeast of
Mather
Airport.
2-13
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
One nautical mile is approximately 1.15 miles. The Grant Line Road Alternative site is
located approximately 4.6 nautical miles (5.2 miles) from the closest runway of Mather
Airport. Based on the location of the Mather Airport reference point, the site could be
considered further than 4.6 nautical miles. However, based on Section 77.23 above,
the radio tower at 500 feet in height would be considered an obstruction to air
navigation, no matter the distance from the airport reference point. Consistent with the
FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1 “Obstruction Marking and Lighting”, notice to FAA is
required when structures exceed 200 feet in height above ground elevation. Therefore,
the applicant would be required to provide notice to FAA, and FAA would perform an
aeronautical study of the proposed construction at this site and determine whether the
structure would be a hazard to air navigation. Similar to the proposed project, the radio
tower would be conditioned to be marked and lit in accordance with FAA Advisory
Circular 70/7460-1. Absent a determination from FAA, this impact is potentially
significant.
As stated in the Public Safety chapter, it is highly unlikely that the public would be
exposed to radio frequency levels in excess of the FCC limits for radio frequency
exposure. Similar to the proposed project, the radio tower would have low level energy
at ground elevations. This is because energy levels quickly dissipate as the signal
radiates from the antenna’s surface and the primary focus of the energy signal is at the
top of the tower and not at ground level near the base of the tower. Therefore, the
exposure level at or near ground elevation is minimal and the proposed antenna would
not have any negative effect on humans or wildlife. Impacts as a result of radio
frequency exposure would be considered less than significant under this alternative.
VISUAL RESOURCES
The Grant Line Road Alternative site is located much closer to well traveled roadways
than the proposed project location. The tower and guy wire anchors would be located
at least 500 feet from the centerline of Grant Line Road; the tower could be located
within 1,000 feet of Grant Line Road. Jackson Highway is located approximately ½ mile
south of this site. Kiefer Boulevard is located just over a mile north of the site. A 500foot tower would be a visual obtrusion to the landscape for motorists on these three
major roadways and would be visually notable. The visual quality is defined by the
vividness, intactness and unity. Vividness is a measure of the visual impression that
remains in the memory of the viewer. Vivid visual experiences are striking and
distinctive. Intactness is a visual integrity of the natural and built landscape. Intact
landscapes are unobstructed visual experiences. Unity is the coherent intercompatibility of connected landscape elements. This location has low vividness and
high intactness and unity. Addition of a 500-foot guyed radio tower would increase the
vividness to high and would decrease the intactness and unity of the site to moderate.
A low rating is not given due to the thin profile of the tower and the fact that it would not
take up a large portion of the viewshed or landscape and viewers would be able to see
beyond the tower.
The Grant Line Road Alternative site is located closer to residential properties
compared to the proposed site. In addition, there are more residences that could be
2-14
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
affected by the intrusion of the tower to the landscape compared to the two residential
receptors located within a half mile of the proposed project site. The residences located
near the Grant Line Road Alternative site are located less than 1,000 feet from the site.
Under this alternative, the residences would not have the advantage of distance when
viewing the tower, compared to the proposed project.
The visual quality of the site will be reduced to moderate levels. Although this is a
negative impact, the impact itself is not substantial because of the slim profile of the
tower and because of the relatively small viewer groups (residential viewers) impacted.
Visual and aesthetic impacts are generally subjective, as sensitivity to change in the
urban environment varies and individuals respond differently to these changes. It
should be stressed that the degree of impact of a project, either negative or beneficial,
to the visual character of the area is largely subjective. Few objective or quantitative
standards are available to analyze the visual quality and individual viewers respond
differently to changes in the physical environment. It is recognized that visual quality is
intensely subjective, and as noted the nearby residents are likely to be more sensitive to
any change, regardless of whether the analysis concludes the impact is not significant.
The environmental impact to visual resources under the Grant Line Road Alternative
would be considered less than significant.
In review of aerial photos for this parcel, it appears that there are vernal pool complexes
throughout the parcel. The Grant Line Road Alternative location was chosen by the
applicant to minimize and/or avoid direct impacts to the vernal pool complexes located
on this parcel. A wetland delineation would be required to determine any direct or
indirect impacts to wetlands due to constructing the radio tower. The access road for
maintenance would likely impact existing wetland swales or vernal pools. Under this
alternative, there could be direct impacts to wetlands/waters of the U.S; however, direct
impacts would be considered less than significant with compensatory mitigation
consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and County General Plan
no-net-loss guidelines. Due to the vernal pool complexes near the tower site, there
could be indirect impacts to special status wetland species (such as the vernal pool
tadpole shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and conservancy fairy shrimp and special
status wetland plants) which would require consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). It is expected that consultation with the USFWS (if needed) would
provide recommended avoidance or protection measures which would reduce these
potentially significant impacts to special status species to less than significant.
The Grant Line Road Alternative site does not contain any trees or riparian habitat;
therefore, there would not be any impacts to riparian habitat or tree resources if the
tower were constructed at this location. In addition, there are no creeks in the vicinity of
this alternative location; therefore, there would not be any impacts to tricolored
blackbirds.
2-15
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Similar to the proposed project, a preconstruction raptor nest survey (which would
include Swainson’s hawk) would be applicable to this alternative location since there are
potential nesting trees within ½ mile of this alternative site.
Under the Grant Line Road Alternative, similar to the proposed project, the impacts to
biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Grant Line Road Alternative site is located just over one mile from Deer Creek.
Similar to the proposed project, as this site is located in the vicinity of Deer Creek, the
impact to cultural resources would be similar to the proposed project. Absent a cultural
resources study specific to this site, it is expected that there would be the potential for
unanticipated discoveries of subsurface cultural resources during project
implementation phases which would require mitigation similar to Mitigation Measure CR1 of the proposed project. In addition, similar to the proposed project, an archaeological
and Native American monitor would be required for the development of this site
(Mitigation Measure CR-2 of the proposed project). It is reasonable to conclude that the
impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be similar to the proposed
project; therefore, with mitigation, impacts to cultural resources under this alternative
IMPACT ANALYSIS: ALTERNATIVE 3 – RANCH KNOLL SITE
LAND USE
The land use designation of the Ranch Knoll Alternative site is the same as the
and Zoning Code. A radio tower at this site would not result in environmental land use
impacts. The Ranch Knoll Alternative would not physically divide an established
community, would not induce substantial population growth and would not be
inconsistent with any established habitat conservation plans. The land use impacts of
the Ranch Knoll Alternative would be considered less than significant.
The Ranch Knoll Alternative site is located on land that was granted to the County of
Sacramento by Wildlands, Inc. The conveyance was made and accepted subject to the
reservation of mitigation use rights by Wildlands. The grant deed states that the
“grantee (County of Sacramento) shall not create any easement, license, use, right, or
encumbrance on the Property or to the title to the Property until any and all
Conservation Easements have been recorded against the Property”. According to the
Department of Waste Management and Recycling, the timing of a Conservation
Easement is currently unknown. Wildlands is in the process of preparing a wetland
mitigation plan that can be found acceptable to the County. Even if the County wanted
2-16
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
to lease a portion of this land to the applicant for the development of a radio tower, the
restrictions set forth in the grant deed would not allow for the construction and operation
of the radio tower since a Conservation Easement has not yet been recorded.
Wildlands, Inc. is now considering leasing the site for construction and operation of the
radio tower. The grant deed would have to be amended to allow the radio tower to be
constructed at this site; the County, applicant and Wildlands are currently in
negotiations.
The Ranch Knoll Alternative would not result in the introduction of an incompatible use
adjacent to existing agricultural operations. Under this alternative, there would not be a
loss to farm operations, acreages, production or yields since fixed wing aerial
applications would not be expected to be affected at Davis Ranch. This alternative site
is located outside of the flight path of aerial applications at Davis Ranch. The impacts to
agricultural resources would be considered less than significant under this alternative.
There are no production crops adjacent to the Ranch Knoll Alternative site. This
alternative will avoid the identified significant and unavoidable agricultural impact of the
proposed project.
PUBLIC SAFETY
The Ranch Knoll Alternative site is located approximately seven (7) miles from the
runways of Mather Airport. The applicant had previously considered this site for
placement of the radio tower and received a Determination of No Hazard to Air
Navigation from the FAA. There would not be an adverse effect upon the safe and
efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft.
Communication towers are manufactured under rigid conditions and the design and
required safety factors for communication towers are specified in the Uniform Building
Code. The tower and foundations would be engineered to meet or exceed all
requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Tower failure is highly unlikely; however in
the unlikely event that the tower would fail, a radius of 500 feet around the base of the
tower would be considered the fall zone. There are no residences located within 500
feet of this site. Safety impacts would be considered less than significant under this
alternative.
2-17
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
VISUAL RESOURCES
The Ranch Knoll Alternative site is located approximately 0.7 miles north of the
proposed project site. The visual impacts of the 500-foot guyed FM radio tower at this
site would be very similar to the proposed project. The only difference is that at this
alternative location, the distance of the radio tower from sensitive receptors (residences)
is greater; therefore, the tower would not obstruct the viewshed or landscape for these
viewer groups. The agricultural- residential lots located near the intersection of Jackson
Highway and Kiefer Boulevard would be located almost two miles to the south, almost
twice the distance compared to the proposed project site. There is one agricultural
residence located 0.3 miles to the northeast of the proposed tower location. From this
alternative location, this residence is located 0.6 miles to the southeast; the tower at this
alternative location would be double the distance from the residential receptor
compared to the proposed project’s location. With the benefit of increased distance
from the radio tower, the radio tower at this alternative location would be less of an
obstruction in the viewshed compared to the proposed project.
The visual impact to motorists south of this alternative location would be reduced
compared to the proposed project due to increased distances from the radio tower. In
addition, the view of the tower from Latrobe Road at this alternative location would likely
not be visible. The visual quality is defined by the vividness, intactness and unity.
Vividness is a measure of the visual impression that remains in the memory of the
viewer. Vivid visual experiences are striking and distinctive. Intactness is a visual
integrity of the natural and built landscape. Intact landscapes are unobstructed visual
experiences. Unity is the coherent inter-compatibility of connected landscape elements.
This location has low vividness and high intactness and unity. Addition of a 500-foot
guyed radio tower would increase the vividness to high (although there are very few
sensitive receptors) and would decrease the intactness and unity of the site to
moderate. A low rating is not given due to the thin profile of the tower and the fact that it
would not take up a large portion of the viewshed or landscape and viewers would be
able to see beyond the tower.
intensely subjective, and as noted the few nearby residents are likely to be more
sensitive to any change, regardless of whether the analysis concludes the impact is not
significant. The environmental impact to visual resources under the Ranch Knoll
Alternative would be considered less than significant.
2-18
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
The Ranch Knoll Alternative site is located on top of a knoll. This knoll is at elevation
180 feet above mean sea level, about 40-50 feet higher than the Ranch House
Alternative site. Based on aerial photographs, there are no creeks in the immediate
vicinity of this alternative location. There are also no trees or riparian habitat near the
knoll; therefore, there would not be any impacts to creeks, riparian habitat or tree
resources if the tower were constructed at this location.
There is a man-made stock pond located in the vicinity of this site (refer to Plate ALT
-3). Information from a prior project on the Kiefer Bufferlands, titled 13333 Kiefer
Boulevard Grading Permit (Control Number: 07-70309), noted that the southeastern
and western edge of this stock pond contains cattails.
Tricolored blackbirds are a colonial nester which breeds near fresh water, preferably in
emergent wetland with tall, dense cattails or tules, but also in thickets of willow,
blackberry, wild rose, and tall herbs. The species feeds in grassland and cropland
habitats. The usual breeding season is mid-April into late July. The species is listed as
a California Species of Special Concern due to loss of nesting habitat.
Absent preliminary project site plans, the actual distance of the tower and anchor points
from the stock pond is unknown. It is possible that the tower or anchor points could be
within 300 feet of the stock pond. If project plans show that the tower or anchor points
are within 300 feet of the stock pond, mitigation would be required to reduce potential
impacts to nesting tricolored blackbirds. Mitigation would require that if construction
activities are proposed during the breeding season (March 1 through July 31) preconstruction surveys shall be conducted where suitable nesting habitat is present within
300 feet of the project site. If tricolored blackbirds are found nesting within 300 feet of
the survey area, the California Department of Fish and Game shall be contacted and
appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures shall be implemented. This
may include establishing a buffer or postponing construction until fledging of all
nestlings (about July 31). Specific measures cannot be outlined at this time because
the extent and type of measures required are highly situational, depending on distance
to the nest, the number of nesting individuals, the type of nesting substrate, and other
factors. If no tricolored blackbirds are found during the pre-construction survey, no
further mitigation would be required. With mitigation, impacts to nesting tricolored
blackbirds would be considered less than significant.
In review of aerial photographs, it appears that there may be wetland features in the
vicinity of the knoll; however absent a wetland delineation, the direct impacts to
wetlands as a result of tower construction at this location is unknown. Direct impacts to
wetlands/waters of the U.S. would be considered less than significant with
compensatory mitigation consistent with USACE and County General Plan no-net-loss
2-19
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
guidelines. The wetland features near this site indicate that the site could be suitable
habitat for special status wetland species (such as the vernal pool tadpole shrimp,
vernal pool fairy shrimp, and conservancy fairy shrimp and special status wetland
plants) which would require consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). It is expected that consultation with the USFWS (if needed) would provide
recommended avoidance or protection measures which would reduce these potentially
significant impacts to special status species to less than significant.
Under the Ranch Knoll Alternative, similar to the proposed project, the impacts to
biological resources would be considered less than significant with mitigation.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is from a prior project on the Kiefer Bufferlands, titled 13333
Kiefer Boulevard Grading Permit (Control Number: 07-70309). This project was a
request by Wildlands, Inc. for a grading permit to establish approximately 12± acres of
wetlands, including vernal pools and swales.
The cultural setting for the site of the prior document is included below:
The project site is located in the ethnographic territory of the Valley Nisenan,
though branches of other groups such as the Maidu and Miwok likely used the
American River for seasonal resource procurement. Nisenan sites included
villages, seasonal camps, quarries, ceremonial grounds, trading sites, fishing
stations, cemeteries, and river crossings. Their permanent settlements typically
were found on ridges separating parallel streams, or on crests, knolls, or
elevated terraces on south-facing slopes (Wilson and Towne 1978; Kroeber
1925).
Historically, the project area lies just east of the Sheldon and Daylor grant, also
known as the Rancho Omochumnes. The long narrow project site is the result of
being divided between two land grants; the official Sheldon land grant to the east
and the alleged grant of Emanuel Pratt to the west. Later reviews of these grants
would prove that Sheldon’s grant was official and Pratt’s claimed grant was not.
After such review, the Pratt land was sectioned off as part of the township.
Generally, the lands of the project area have always been utilized for agricultural
purposes, with residential uses being ancillary to agricultural purposes. For the
project site, the land was utilized for grazing livestock and apparently never was
cultivated.
RESEARCH
The prior project required a Clean Water Act permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, which requires demonstration of compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
2-20
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
The project applicant for the prior project enlisted Peak and Associates in conducting a
cultural resources assessment entitled “Determination of Eligibility and Effect for the
Crevis Creek Wetland Preserve Project, Sacramento County, California” (January
2007). As part of the cultural resources research, Peak conducted a record search at
the North Central Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information
System. Additionally a record search was conducted by DERA at the NCIC.
According to the conducted record searches, there are no known prehistoric,
ethnohistoric, or historic period resources recorded within the project site. However,
there are four resources that are recorded within a quarter mile of the project site.
Generally, these sites, consisting of 3 historic period resources and 1 prehistoric period
resource, are located along or within close proximity to the Cosumnes River to the
south.
In addition to archival research, Peak sent a letter to the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) requesting a check of the Sacred Lands files. Additionally, Peak
sent letters to Native American individuals and groups, requesting additional information
and informing them of the proposed project. No replies were received.
FIELDWORK
Ann Peak, Sue Merritt and Michael Lawson completed a pedestrian survey of the
project area in January of 2005. The entire project area was traversed on foot using 10to 15-meter wide transects. Where necessary, the field crew utilized small holes dug by
hand to examine sediments that were not readily visible due to dense vegetation or
otherwise.
No evidence of prehistoric period resources was uncovered in the survey effort. One
historic period resource was recorded during the effort. The following summary of the
resource is taken from Peak:
The site consists of an older barn next to a more modern set of buildings near the
center of the property and south of the reservoir. The barn is in poor condition
with some of the metal corrugated roof absent. The barn has a dressed stone
foundation, and is of unknown age. It may be the feature shown on the 1922
Buffalo Creek USGS topographic quadrangle as its location corresponds with a
building location on that map.
Adjacent to the barn is a large wide metal and pole shed and this is attached to a
smaller metal shed. One hundred feet to the southwest is a very modern
residence that is in use. These buildings post-date the construction of the barn
and appear to be less than 40 years old.
Three other modern features are present within the project area. These include
a small reservoir with water impounded by a low earthen dam; a dilapidated
windmill on the northern shore of the reservoir; and a well and electric pump.
The 1954 Buffalo Creek topographic map shows no reservoir in this location.
2-21
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
SITE EVALUATION
Peak utilized the criteria set forth by the National Register of Historical Places for
evaluating resources and made the following evaluating conclusion:
From the historical research conducted on the site, it is clear that the barn is not
associated with events or individuals important in history (NRHP Criteria A and
B). The barn is not of any particular style (Criterion C), and has had alterations
and repairs over the years. The barn lacks integrity of design, materials, and
workmanship, as well as setting, with the introduction of new buildings into the
complex. The resource is not a historic property under the criteria of the National
Register.
Similarly, the resource lacks the above, under the criteria of the California Register of
Historic Resources, thus the resource is not considered a historic property under CEQA.
The Public Resources Code § 21084.1 states: “A project that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a
significant effect on the environment.” PRC § 5021.1(q) defines substantial adverse
change as “demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration such that the significance of
an historical resource is impaired.” Therefore, the alteration, demolition, or destruction
of the structures on the project site, would not affect an historical resource and would
have a less-than-significant effect on the environment.
CONCLUSION
The house at this site has since been removed (demolished in 2009) and the barn and
other related structures still remain. The prior project concluded the following:
No prehistoric or historic period archaeological resources were recovered or
noted during the survey. However, there is a potential for the discovery of
subsurface cultural resources that have been obscured from view due to natural
reburial processes. Although no additional cultural resource work is
recommended at this time, there is a possibility of uncovering subsurface
archaeological materials during the construction phases of the project.
Therefore, mitigation for subsurface cultural resources is included in the
“Environmental Mitigation Measures” section of this Initial Study.
The Ranch Knoll Alternative site is located approximately 500 feet from the barn
complex. The above conclusion and recommended mitigation would be applicable for
this alternative site. With mitigation for the potential for undiscovered subsurface
prehistoric or historic cultural resources, impacts to cultural resources would be
considered less than significant.
2-22
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
IMPACT ANALYSIS: ALTERNATIVE 4 – RANCH HOUSE ALTERNATIVE SITE
LAND USE
Similar to the Ranch Knoll Alternative, there are deed restrictions on the Ranch House
Alternative site. According to staff at Waste Management and Recycling, the
development rights of the Ranch House Alternative site are under control of the County
of Sacramento, but similar to the Ranch Knoll Alternative site, the development cannot
occur until a Conservation Easement is recorded. Once a Conservation Easement is
recorded, the County can develop the site within the limitations set forth in the
Conservation Easement. At this time, the ability of the County to lease the land for the
development and operation of a radio tower is hindered by the agreement of a wetland
mitigation plan. Similar to the Ranch Knoll Alternative, the County, applicant and
Wildlands are currently in negotiations to amend the deed to allow for the radio tower to
be sited at this location.
The land use designation of the Ranch House Alternative site is the same as the
and Zoning Code. A radio tower at this site would not result in environmental land use
impacts. The Ranch House Alternative would not physically divide an established
community, would not induce substantial population growth and would not be
inconsistent with any established habitat conservation plans. The land use impacts of
the Ranch House Alternative would be considered less than significant.
The Ranch House Alternative would not result in the introduction of an incompatible use
adjacent to existing agricultural operations. Under this alternative, there would not be a
loss to farm operations, acreages, production or yields since fixed wing aerial
applications would not be expected to be affected at Davis Ranch. This alternative site
is located outside of the flight path of aerial applications at Davis Ranch. The impacts to
agricultural resources would be considered less than significant under this alternative
There are no production crops adjacent to the Ranch House Alternative site; therefore,
the Ranch House Alternative will avoid the identified significant and unavoidable
agricultural impact of the proposed project.
PUBLIC SAFETY
The Ranch Knoll Alternative site was previously granted a Determination of No Hazard
to Air Navigation by the FAA. It is expected that the same determination could be made
for the Ranch House Alternative site due to its close proximity to the Ranch Knoll
Alternative site. The Ranch House Alternative would not have any significant adverse
impacts to air navigation.
2-23
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
required safety factors for communication towers are specified in the Uniform Building
Code. The tower and foundations would be engineered to meet or exceed all
requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Tower failure is highly unlikely; however in
the unlikely event that the tower would fail, a radius of 500 feet around the base of the
tower would be considered the fall zone. There are no residences located within 500
feet of this site. Animal husbandry structures would be located within 500 feet of the
base of the tower. If the structures are being used by animals, there is a potential for
impacts to animals; however, as previously stated, tower failure is highly unlikely and
the proposed tower would not result in a loss of life to people. Safety impacts would be
VISUAL RESOURCES
The Ranch House Alternative site is located approximately 0.7 miles north of the
proposed project site. The visual impacts of the 500-foot guyed FM radio tower at this
site would be very similar to the proposed project. The only difference is that at this
alternative location, the distance of the radio tower from sensitive receptors (residences)
is greater; therefore, the tower would not obstruct the viewshed or landscape for these
viewer groups. As previously mentioned, the residential structure that was located at
this site has been demolished. The agricultural- residential lots located near the
intersection of Jackson Highway and Kiefer Boulevard would be located almost two
miles to the south, almost twice the distance compared to the proposed project site.
There is one agricultural residence located 0.3 miles to the northeast of the proposed
tower location. From this alternative location, the residence is located 0.6 miles to the
southeast; the tower at this alternative location would be double the distance from the
residential receptor compared to the proposed project’s location. With the benefit of
increased distance from the radio tower, the radio tower at this alternative location
would be less of an obstruction in the viewshed compared to the proposed project.
The visual impact to motorists south of this alternative location would be reduced
compared to the proposed project due to increased distances from the radio tower. In
addition, the tower would likely not be visible from Latrobe Road at this alternative
location.
The visual quality is defined by the vividness, intactness and unity. Vividness is a
measure of the visual impression that remains in the memory of the viewer. Vivid visual
2-24
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
experiences are striking and distinctive. Intactness is a visual integrity of the natural
and built landscape. Intact landscapes are unobstructed visual experiences. Unity is
the coherent inter-compatibility of connected landscape elements. This location has low
vividness and high intactness and unity. Addition of a 500-foot guyed radio tower would
increase the vividness to high (although there are very few sensitive receptors) and
would decrease the intactness and unity of the site to moderate. A low rating is not
given due to the thin profile of the tower and the fact that it would not take up a large
portion of the viewshed or landscape and viewers would be able to see beyond the
tower.
intensely subjective, and as noted the nearby residents are likely to be more sensitive to
any change, regardless of whether the analysis concludes the impact is not significant.
The environmental impact to visual resources under the Ranch House Site Alternative
The Ranch House Alternative site is located at a compound of animal husbandry
structures. The home that was at this site has been demolished. There are no
residential structures at this location. The Ranch House Alternative site is highly
disturbed and contains an existing access road to the site. Based on aerial
photographs, there are trees located at this site. Preliminary investigations by the
applicant indicate that the tower could be oriented to avoid the trees and that tree
removal would not be necessary. There are no impacts to tree resources under this
alternative.
There is an un-named ephemeral tributary east of the Ranch House Alternative site.
Information from a prior project on the Kiefer Bufferlands, titled 13333 Kiefer Boulevard
Grading Permit (Control Number: 07-70309) indicates that the un-named tributary is
vegetated throughout with trees and shrubs; with wooded canopy including willows,
cottonwoods, and oak trees; and an understory shrub community of Himalayan
blackberries, common rush and yellow water primrose. It was noted that due to cattle
activity, the stream water was highly polluted and there was heavy disturbance along
the banks. Tower construction at the Ranch House Alternative site will not affect the
un-named tributary since water quality/ erosion best management practices will be used
at the site, consistent with Sacramento County ordinances.
2-25
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
The applicant has provided a preliminary site plan with the tower and three anchor
points demarked on an aerial photograph (Plate ALT -5). Based on this information, the
northern anchor point would be just over 300 feet from the stock pond located northwest
of the Ranch House Alternative site. As noted in the prior document, cattails line the
southeastern and western edge of the stock pond. The southwestern anchor point
would be approximately 460 feet from the stock pond and the southeastern anchor point
would be less than 100 feet from the un-named tributary. Absent a site specific survey,
it is assumed that the stock pond and un-named tributary contains suitable tricolored
blackbird nesting habitat. Due to the northern anchor point and the southeastern
anchor point located within 300 feet of potential suitable nesting habitat, mitigation
would be required to reduce potential impacts to nesting tricolored blackbirds.
Mitigation would require that if construction activities are proposed during the breeding
season (March 1 through July 31) pre-construction surveys shall be conducted where
suitable nesting habitat is present within 300 feet of the project site. If tricolored
blackbirds are found nesting within 300 feet of the survey area, the California
Department of Fish and Game shall be contacted and appropriate avoidance and
impact minimization measures shall be implemented. This may include establishing a
buffer or postponing construction until fledging of all nestlings (about July 31). Specific
measures cannot be outlined at this time because the extent and type of measures
required are highly situational, depending on distance to the nest, the number of nesting
individuals, the type of nesting substrate, and other factors. If no tricolored blackbirds
are found during the pre-construction survey, no further mitigation would be required.
With mitigation, impacts to nesting tricolored blackbirds would be considered less than
significant.
It appears that there may be wetland features around the ranch complex; however
absent a wetland delineation, the direct impacts to wetlands/waters of the U.S. as a
result of tower construction at this location are unknown. Direct impacts to
wetlands/waters of the U.S. would be considered less than significant with
compensatory mitigation consistent with USACE and County General Plan no-net-loss
guidelines. The wetland features at this site indicate that the site could be suitable
habitat for special status wetland species (such as the vernal pool tadpole shrimp,
vernal pool fairy shrimp, and conservancy fairy shrimp and special status wetland
plants) which would require consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). It is expected that consultation with the USFWS (if needed) would provide
recommended avoidance or protection measures which would reduce these potentially
significant impacts to special status species to less than significant.
Under the Ranch House Alternative, similar to the proposed project, the impacts to
biological resources would be considered less than significant with mitigation.
2-26
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate ALT -5: Ranch House Alternative Site
2-27
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Refer to the Cultural Resources discussion for the Ranch Knoll Alternative site for a
cultural resources discussion. The conclusion for the Ranch Knoll Alternative site is
applicable to the Ranch House Alternative site. Cultural resources impacts would be
considered less than significant with mitigation.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The No Project Alternative would avoid the identified significant and unavoidable
agricultural incompatibility impact of the proposed project; however, the No Project
Alternative will not meet the objectives of the proposed project.
The Grant Line Road Alternative would avoid the identified significant and unavoidable
agricultural incompatibility impact of the proposed project, but this alternative may have
an additional impact that the proposed project does not have. Under this alternative,
there may be wetland/waters of the U.S. direct and/or indirect impacts; however, with
appropriate compensatory mitigation consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and County General Plan no-net-loss guidelines, this impact would be
considered less than significant. Unlike the proposed project, the Grant Line Road
Alternative would not result in any tree impacts. Similar to the proposed project, the
visual resources impact of the tower at this location would be considered less than
significant; however, this alternative does not have the advantage of distance from
affected viewer groups like the proposed project does.
The Ranch Knoll Alternative would avoid the identified significant and unavoidable
agricultural incompatibility impact of the proposed project, but this alternative site may
have wetland/waters of the U.S. direct and/or indirect impacts that the proposed project
does not have. However, with appropriate compensatory mitigation consistent with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and County General Plan no-net-loss
guidelines, this impact would be considered less than significant. The Ranch Knoll
Alternative has the potential to impact nesting tricolored blackbirds; therefore mitigation
requiring pre-construction nesting tricolored blackbird surveys during the breeding
season (March 1 through July 31) is recommended for this site and would reduce
potential impacts to less than significant. Unlike the proposed project, the Ranch Knoll
Alternative would not result in any tree impacts. Similar to the proposed project, the
visual resources impact of the tower would be considered less than significant; however
at this location there would be increased distance from the few sensitive receptors
located south of this alternative site (and the project site).
The Ranch House Alternative would avoid the identified significant and unavoidable
agricultural incompatibility impact of the proposed project. The Ranch House
Alternative may have wetland/waters of the U.S. direct and/or indirect impacts that the
proposed project does not have. However, with appropriate compensatory mitigation
consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and County General Plan
2-28
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
no-net-loss guidelines, this impact would be considered less than significant. The
Ranch House Site Alternative has the potential to impact nesting tricolored blackbirds;
therefore mitigation requiring pre-construction nesting tricolored blackbird surveys
during the breeding season (March 1 through July 31) is recommended for this site and
will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. It should be noted that there is an
existing access road to the Ranch House Alternative site and that the site is currently a
disturbed site.
CONCLUSION
The Grant Line Road, the Ranch Knoll and Ranch House Alternatives will all avoid the
identified significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project. These three
alternatives will not result in any new significant impacts that could not be reduced to
less than significant with mitigation. Due to the complexities of access to the Grant Line
Road Alternative site (consistency with the Southeast Capital Connector and avoidance
of vernal pools/wetlands), the location of the tower in proximity to viewer groups and
due to the vernal pool complexes surrounding this alternative site, the Grant Line Road
Alternative site is not considered an environmentally superior alternative.
Due to the encumbrances set forth in the deed between Wildlands, Inc. and the County
of Sacramento, the least encumbered site is the Ranch House Alternative site. The
Ranch House Alternative will meet the basic objectives of the proposed project; this
alternative location will improve existing weak signals and reach Capital Public Radio’s
intended core market, will not interfere with established and protected TV and radio
signals, and will not interfere with FAA established flight paths or FAA communications.
For the above reasons, the Ranch House Alternative is the environmentally superior
alternative.
2-29
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
3 LAND USE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter examines existing land uses in and adjacent to the project area and
identifies applicable regulations and policies affecting the project site. This section
evaluates potential land use impacts of the proposed project, including the potential for
land use plan or policy inconsistency. Impacts associated with agricultural uses are
analyzed in the Agricultural Resources chapter (Chapter 4).
LAND USE SETTING
The project site is subject to the policies of the Sacramento County General Plan and
the Sacramento County Zoning Code. The project site is located south of the Kiefer
Landfill and near Deer Creek. The site is designated General Agriculture on the
Sacramento County General Plan Land Use Diagram (Plate LU -1), and zoned AG-80,
agricultural uses, minimum 80-acre sized parcels (Plate LU -2). The project site is
approximately 1.6 acres in size (actual disturbed area is approximately 0.78 acres),
located on the northern portion of a 278± acre parcel. The project site appears to have
been used for cattle ranching/grazing operations in the past. This is evident from the
pastures and nearby barns and hay storage shed. The proposed radio tower will be
located in one of the pastures and there will be three guy wire ground anchors around
the tower. One anchor point will be located between Deer Creek and its tributary,
located south of the tower site. The guy wires will have to pass through the top of the
tree canopy of the tributary to reach the anchor point.
3-1
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
3 - LAND USE
Plate LU -1: General Plan Designation of Project Site and Surrounding Areas
3-2
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
3 - LAND USE
Plate LU -2: Zoning Map
3-3
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
3 - LAND USE
REGULATORY SETTING
The land use regulations applicable to the site are embodied within the Sacramento
County General Plan, and within the Sacramento County Zoning Code.
GENERAL PLAN (GP) LAND USE ELEMENT
The Sacramento County General Plan Land Use Element sets the policy for land uses
in the unincorporated county for the next 25 years, establishing the foundation for future
land uses and development. The Land Use Element designated the distribution of land
uses, such as residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, open space, recreation,
and public uses. The Land Use Element’s primary role is to ensure that the County’s
land resources are utilized in the most efficient, equitable and productive manner
possible to provide a high quality of life for both current and future residents.
The project site is designated General Agriculture (80 acres). This designation is
defined in the Land Use Element as:
This designation identifies land that is generally used for agricultural purposes,
but less suited for intensive agricultural than Agricultural Cropland. The minimum
size allowable is 80 acres, large enough to maintain an economically viable
farming operation. Typical farming activities include dry land grain, and irrigated
and dry land pasture. Most soil classes range between IV and VI on the Soil
Conservation Service scale. Constraints found in areas with this designation
include shallow soils, uncertain water supply, moderate slopes, fair to poor crop
yield, and farm unit fragmentation. Only agricultural production is permitted in
areas with this designation. The General Agriculture/80 acres designation allows
single family dwelling units at a density no greater than 80 acres per unit.
The project does not propose urban development on agriculture designated lands. The
General Plan policies as they relate to agriculture are addressed in the Agricultural
Resource Chapter.
ZONING REGULATIONS
The Sacramento County Zoning Code does not contain provisions specifically for guyed
radio towers; however, Section 301-13.5 contains provisions for wireless
communication facilities, to which the proposed radio tower is similar in nature.
Wireless facilities are permitted in any zone, subject to certain criteria. The project site
is in the AG zone, which is identified as Group III in the Zoning Code. The tower would
be considered a “new monopole” and Section 301-13.5(d)(1) provides the appropriate
authority for the use permit. The appropriate authority is the Project Planning
Commission as Section 301-13.5(d)(1)(aa) states the following:
Project Planning Commission – Any wireless facilities on new monopoles,
including ancillary equipment buildings, which are to be located in Group I zones
3-4
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
3 - LAND USE
or do not meet the development standards of this section are subject to the
issuance of a conditional use permit by the Project Planning Commission
pursuant to Title I, Chapter 10, Article 3. In addition to the development
standards in Section 301-13.5(d)(3) and those conditions which the Commission
may impose pursuant to Section 110-34, the Commission may also impose
conditions pursuant to Section 301-13.5(f).
Section 301-13.5(d) (2) provides the development standards for antenna(s) affixed to
towers located on the ground in Group II and III zones:
(aa) Any facility located in a Group II or III zoning category shall be separated
from any Group I zone by a distance at least three times the height of the tower.
(bb) The height of any tower shall not exceed 65 feet in a Group II zone or 130
feet in a Group III zone.
(cc) The facility shall be separated from any adjacent interior property
boundary by 25 feet or public right of way by 31 feet or more. (Amended 2/2010)
Additional provisions in the Zoning Code include:
Section 301-13.5(f): The Board of Supervisors finds that it is in the interest of the
health, safety, and general welfare of the County to integrate wireless facilities
into existing structures or to collocated wireless facilities to reduce the visual and
potential visual intrusion of such facilities on the surrounding area, residents and
general populace of this County.
(1) Utility providers are therefore encouraged to:
(aa) Employ all reasonable measures to site their antenna equipment on
existing structures as façade mounts, roof mounts, or collocation on
existing towers prior to applying for new towers.
(bb) Whenever possible avoid locating towers on sites that require
painting or lighting per FAA Standards.
(cc) All County agencies, dependent and independent districts, and utility
provides shall be encouraged to permit and streamline collocation of
cellular facilities on appropriate existing structures subject to reasonable
engineering requirements.
(2) The Board authorizes the appropriate authority to impose conditions on the
grant of a use permit as it deems necessary to achieve these objectives and
those of Section 110-34 and to protect the purposes of the Code. Some
examples of conditions are:
(aa) The use of screening, stealthing, use of setbacks and use of
architectural features on the subject site.
3-5
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
3 - LAND USE
(bb) The use of close proximity designs when new antennas are placed
on poles.
(cc) The use of materials which blend the tower or wireless facility in with
the skyline, prevalent architectural or natural features of the subject site.
(dd) All unused or obsolete wireless facilities, towers, or equipment shall
be removed from their respective sites within six (6) months after
operation has ceased.
(ee) Identification signs, including emergency phone numbers of the utility
provider, shall be posted at all tower and equipment sites.
(ff) In addition to the requirements listed herein, wireless communication
facilities are subject to all other applicable regulations and permits,
including those of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of the State of
California and the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). (Amended
6/98).
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
According to the CEQA Guidelines, a land use impact is significant if any portion of the
project will:
a. Physically divide an established community;
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including, but no limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect;
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan;
d. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure); or
e. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Criterion (e) does not apply because there is no housing within or adjacent to the project
site which could be displaced. This impact is not discussed below.
3-6
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
3 - LAND USE
IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS
IMPACT: CONSISTENCY WITH THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE ELEMENT
The policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as they relate to land use are
generally focused on housing, population and how and where growth will occur in the
unincorporated portions of the County. The policies are intended to direct development
towards existing urban areas and away from sprawling and segregated types of
development.
As stated in the Regulatory Section above, the General Agriculture (80 acres) land use
designation of the site is to maintain a viable farming operation. The development of a
radio tower on agricultural land is generally not in conflict with farming operations. Uses
compatible with farming operations generally include communication facilities.
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element. The
environmental land use impacts of the proposed project are considered less than
significant.
IMPACT: CONSISTENCY WITH THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY ZONING CODE
The Zoning Code provides that wireless facilities (to which the proposed radio tower is
similar in nature) are allowed in any land use zone. As stated in the Regulatory Section
above, the Zoning Code standards for wireless facilities in the AG zone shall not exceed
130 feet in height and shall be separated from any adjacent interior property boundary
by 25 feet or public right-of-way by 31 feet. The proposed tower is 500 feet tall and the
western guy wire anchor point will be 58 feet from the interior property boundary. There
are no structures within the fall zone of the tower.
In addition, the Zoning Code states that it is encouraged that the tower be located on
sites that will not require painting or lighting per the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) standards. The tower is located approximately 3.5 miles from the Rancho
Murieta Airport and FAA has made the determination that the proposed tower would not
be a hazard to air navigation. However, as a condition to that determination, the
structure must be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1K
(Obstruction Marking and Lighting). However, this condition is not solely due to the
proposed location being 3.5 miles from the Rancho Murieta Airport. Due to the height of
the tower, no matter the tower’s location, painting and lighting would be required to
ensure air safety as well as reduce bird collisions (refer to the Public Safety and
Biological Resources chapters, respectively).
The proposed project does not conflict with the Zoning Code. Impacts are considered
3-7
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
3 - LAND USE
IMPACT: PHYSICALLY DIVIDE AN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY
The division or disruption of an established community is an impact considered by
CEQA. Case law has established that a project must create physical barriers within the
established community in order to be considered under this impact category. An
example of such an impact is a new highway through an existing town. The proposed
project consists of the construction and operation of a FM radio tower on a site used in
the past for cattle ranching operations. The radio tower will not result in diversion or
disruption of an established community; therefore, impacts are considered less than
significant.
IMPACT: CONSISTENCY WITH HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS
The project site is located on a parcel just south of an area designated for the Kiefer
Landfill Bufferlands. The Kiefer Landfill Buffer Planning Project was initiated by the
Board of Supervisors to determine the best use for the land surrounding the Kiefer
Landfill. The bufferlands area adjacent to the project site is proposed to be a habitat
preserve area. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was issued for the Kiefer Landfill
Special Planning Area (SPA) and GreenCycle Projects which identifies the parcel north
of the project parcel as a Habitat Preserve District. The Habitat Preserve District
contains vernal pools and associated grassland habitat. It is intended to be
permanently protected. Any development or disturbance within this district shall
conform to the regulations governing all conservation easements or similar agreements
encumbering the site. The project will not result in development on lands dedicated for
habitat protection. Furthermore, construction and operation of the proposed project will
not result in an inability to record a conservation easement for the parcel north of the
project site, nor will the project conflict with any future habitat protection strategies. The
proposed project will not conflict with any existing habitat conservation plan and it will
not conflict with any foreseeable future habitat protection plans; impacts are considered
IMPACT: INDUCE SUBSTANTIAL POPULATION GROWTH
Under CEQA, a project is generally considered to be growth inducing if it results in any
of the following: extension of urban services or infrastructure into a previously unserved
area; extension of a transportation corridor into an area that may be subsequently
developed; or removal of a major obstacle to development and growth. According to
the applicant, the location of the tower was chosen so that the center of their broadcast
radius reaches the community of Carmichael, which is an urbanized community.
Although the project site is located in a rural agricultural area, outside of the Urban
Services Boundary, the development of the proposed radio tower is not considered an
extension of an urban service and does not result in removal of a major obstacle to
development and growth. The proposed project will not induce population growth;
impacts are considered less than significant.
3-8
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
3 - LAND USE
IMPACT: CUMULATIVE LAND USE IMPACTS
A cumulative impact is defined as when a project’s incremental effect is cumulatively
considerable, as defined in Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The project
does not conflict with the Sacramento County General Plan or Zoning Code, and does
not conflict with any habitat conservation plans. The proposed project will not physically
divide an established community nor will it induce substantial population growth. The
project, in combination with other projects in the area will not result in a cumulative land
use impact.
3-9
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
4 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter analyzes the impact of the proposed project on agriculture and agricultural
lands. Potential impacts considered in this section include compatibility of the project
with surrounding agricultural areas and consistency with local agricultural land use
policies.
The project site encompasses approximately 1.6± acres of a 268± acre parcel in the
southeastern unincorporated portion of Sacramento County, within the Cosumnes
community. The project site has been used for cattle ranching/grazing and limited
farming activities. The site has a Sacramento County General Plan designation of
General Agriculture and a zoning designation of AG-80 (General Agriculture 80-acre
minimum parcel size). Southwest of the project site is a small complex of barns, corrals
and pastures that likely served the cattle ranching operations. The surrounding land
uses consist of Kiefer Landfill and the Kiefer Landfill bufferlands to the north of the site;
agricultural farm operations (e.g., sweet corn and pumpkins) to the south and
southwest; and cattle ranching/grazing to the east and northeast.
The project parcel is currently under an active Williamson Act contract (Plate AG -1).
The Williamson Act is a State program that allows agricultural landowners to pay
reduced property taxes in return for their contractual agreement to retain the land in
agricultural and open space uses for a period of 10 years.
The project site is located on lands classified as farmlands of local importance. The
area south of the site is classified as prime farmland. The site is surrounded by prime
farmland, farmland of local importance and grazing land (see Plate AG -2).
4-1
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
4 - AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Plate AG -1: Williamson Act Contract Map
4-2
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate AG -2: Farmland Map
Kiefer
Landfill
Davis Ranch, Utterback
Sod and Dairyland Seed
farming operations
Davis Ranch
4-3
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
REGULATORY SETTING
STATE REQUIREMENTS
CALIFORNIA LAND CONSERVATION ACT (WILLIAMSON ACT)
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly called the Williamson Act, has
long been the mainstay of Sacramento County’s agricultural land preservation program.
The purpose of the Williamson Act is to secure a long-term landowner commitment to
maintain farmland in agricultural uses in exchange for assessment of the land based
upon use rather than market value.
The Williamson Act contract is a legal contract between the landowner and the County
and is an agreement by the land owner to restrict the land listed in the contract to
agricultural and open space uses only. The specific land uses allowed on agricultural
lands under Williamson Act contracts are regulated by the contract itself and by State
law (Government Code Section 51200 et seq.). Generally, the uses allowed by the
Williamson Act contract are those uses related to the production of food and fiber;
however, each Williamson Act contract can be different and individual contracts spell
out permitted and prohibited uses.
Williamson Act contracts are 20-year contracts; after the first 10 years, the contract
automatically renews for an additional year beyond the original 20 years, unless they
are officially terminated. This means that after a notice of non-renewal is filed, it takes
10 years for the contract to expire. If a Williamson Act Contract is cancelled it will
reduce the amount of acreage under contract in Sacramento County and may result in
similar cancellations or filings of non-renewal for other agricultural properties in the
vicinity.
AGRICULTURAL LAND IN CALIFORNIA
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program (FMMP) was established in 1982 in response to a critical need to assessing
the location, quality and quantity of agricultural lands and the conversion of these lands
over time. The FMMP is a non-regulatory program and provides a consistent and
impartial analysis of agricultural land use changes throughout California. The FMMP
provides valuable data regarding soil quality and land use. Every two years the FMMP
maps the entire state of California using the DOC Land Categories. The DOC utilizes a
classification system that combines technical soil ratings and current land uses to
determine important farmland categories throughout the State. The farmland
classification identifies soil map units as prime farmland, farmland of statewide
importance or farmland of local importance. Mapping of grazing land is unique to
California.
Prime farmland describes farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical
characteristics able to sustain long term agricultural production. Prime farmland has the
4-4
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
combination of soil properties, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce
sustained high yields of crops. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural
production at some time during the four years prior to mapping date. Farmland of
Statewide Importance is farmland similar to Prime Farmland but with minor
shortcomings, such as greater slope or less ability to store soil moisture. Similar to
Prime Farmland, to be classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance, the land must
have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years
prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Local Importance are lands that are either currently producing crops, has
the capability of production or is used for the production of confined livestock. Farmland
of Local Importance is land other than Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance or Unique Farmland. This land may be important to the local economy due
to its productivity or value. In Sacramento County, Farmland of Local Importance is
defined as follows:
Lands which do not qualify as Prime, Statewide, or Unique designation but are
currently irrigated crops or pasture or non-irrigated crops; lands that would be
Prime or Statewide designation and have been improved for irrigation but are
now idle; and lands which currently support confined livestock, poultry
operations, and aquaculture.
The Sacramento County Important Farmland 2010 map shows the project site to be
Farmland of Local Importance (refer to Plate AG -2). As shown on Plate AG -2, the site
is surrounded by lands that are classified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Local
Importance or Grazing Land.
Grazing Land is defined in Government Code Section 65570 (b)(3) as:
“…land on which the existing vegetation, whether grown naturally or through
management, is suitable for grazing or browsing of livestock.”
The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres. Grazing Land does not
include land previously designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Local Importance, and heavily brushed or
timbered, excessively steep or rocky lands which restrict the access and movement of
livestock.
LOCAL REQUIREMENTS
SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
The Land Use Element of the General Plan contains policies related to agricultural land
uses. The objective of the agricultural land use designation is to protect important
farmlands to ensure the continuation of agricultural production and to preserve open
space.
4-5
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
An excerpt of the intent of the Agricultural Land Uses section of the Land Use Element
is below:
Agricultural production and open space preservation are threatened by the
conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. Farmland conversion directly
affects agricultural productivity by reducing the farmland base and indirectly by
increasing production costs or reducing yields on neighboring farmlands.
Agricultural property lost to urban uses reduces overall farm production, open
space, and wildlife habitat.
Development pressure and the variable economic nature of agriculture
production, low financial returns and high cost expenditures, have motivated
some farmers to sell or option their land to property developers. Seasons,
markets, and land values control income flow and depending upon weather
patterns, crop surpluses, and economic fluctuations, farmers can realize
handsome profits or sizeable losses. Such variables can make farming difficult
and financial offers from land developers attractive. As a result, a large portion of
the County's agricultural land inventory is being held for future development.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT
The Sacramento County General Plan includes goals and policies to protect and guide
development on surrounding agricultural lands. The goals of the Agricultural Element
are to protect the County’s agricultural lands and to maintain the productivity of these
lands. To meet these goals, the Agricultural Element contains policies on how the
County will support, as well as appropriately regulate, the use of agricultural land. The
Agricultural Element is organized into two sections, one that focuses on the protection
of farmlands and agricultural resources and the other focusing on strengthening the
County’s agricultural economy.
Sacramento County has recognized the key importance of agricultural issues by
incorporating the Agricultural Element into its General Plan. The Agricultural Element is
intended to promote achievement of two general goals:
 Protection/ maintenance of the County’s agricultural lands, their agricultural
productivity and natural resource benefits they provide, and
 Promote/ support farming and related industries as a strong and viable sector of
the economy of a rapidly urbanizing County.
Under the Farmland and Agricultural Resource Protection section of the Agricultural
Element, the goal of this section is to protect important farmlands from conversion and
encroachment and conserve agricultural resources. The policies under this section
pertinent to the proposed project are provided below:
AG-1
The County shall protect prime, statewide importance, unique and local
importance farmlands outside of the USB from urban encroachment.
4-6
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
AG-5
Projects resulting in the conversion of more than fifty (50) acres of
farmland shall be mitigated within Sacramento County, except as specified
in the paragraph below, based on a 1:1 ratio, for the loss of the following
farmland categories through specific planning process or individual
entitlement requests to provide in-kind or similar resource value protection
(such as easements for agricultural purposes):
 Prime, statewide importance, unique, local importance, and grazing
farmlands located outside the USB;
 Prime, statewide importance, unique, and local importance farmlands
located inside the USB.
The Board of Supervisors retains the authority to override impacts to
Unique, Local and Grazing farmlands, but not with respect to Prime and
Statewide farmlands.
However, if that land is also required to provide mitigation pursuant to a
Sacramento County endorsed or approved Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP), then the Board of Supervisors may consider the mitigation land
provided in accordance with the HCP as meeting the requirements of this
section including land outside of Sacramento County.
Note: This policy is not tied to any maps contained in the Agricultural
Element. Instead, the most current Important Farmland map from the
Department of Conservation should be used to calculate mitigation.
AG-21
The County encourages the preservation of prime, statewide importance,
unique and local importance farmlands, including opposing any residential
or commercial development for the Cosumnes River or Deer Creek
riparian areas which are not compatible with agricultural uses.
The goal of the Economic Viability of Agriculture Section of the Agricultural Element is to
enhance the viability of agricultural economy of Sacramento County. This section
provides the policy framework to strengthen Sacramento County’s agricultural
industries. It is recognized in this section that although County agencies have limited
capability to affect the economic viability of farming directly, the County indirectly affects
the socioeconomic conditions under which farmers operate through its Zoning Code,
ordinances, taxation powers, and the programs of various County departments. The
policies in this section are directed to meet the following objectives:
 Reduce crop and livestock productivity losses resulting from noxious weed
infestations and wildfires;
 Increase flexibility and accountability for farmers to provide on-farm housing for
relatives and other employees who work on the farm.
 Reduce the costs and difficulty of obtaining permits for construction of accessory
farm buildings in floodway fringe areas.
4-7
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
 Support Agri-tourism in the County that will: (a) Protect, conserve, and enhance
agribusiness operations in Sacramento County for economic sustainability and
viability; and (b) Promote the visibility of the farms, ranches and properties
participating and working towards protecting and sustaining agriculture in
Sacramento County.
 Increase the equity of assessments on agricultural lands for services that
primarily benefit urban residents.
Agri-tourism is defined as the overlap between agriculture and tourism. Agri-tourism is
an activity, enterprise, or business that combines primary elements and characteristics
of Sacramento County agriculture and tourism and provides an experience for visitors
that stimulate economic activity and contributes to farm, ranch, and community income.
Agri-tourism is a tool to assist the long-term economic sustainability, diversity and
viability for some of the County’s agricultural industry. The following policies apply to
agri-tourism:
AG-34
The County shall support a variety of Agri-tourism uses that encourages
economic sustainability while still respecting and promoting the primary
agriculture use of the land.
AG-35
The County shall support Agri-tourism for different geographical areas of
the County that includes categorical definitions for intensity and type of
uses that allow for flexibility in agricultural practices and market
opportunities while playing particular attention to compatibility with
surrounding uses.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY ZONING CODE
The Agricultural Land Use zones are designed to promote and protect the designated
agricultural lands within Sacramento County. Specifically, these land use zones are
designed to:

Eliminate encroachment of incompatible land uses on agricultural lands;

Preserve the supply of agricultural land in order to conserve the County’s
economic resources;

Discourage premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban
uses;

Preserve agricultural lands as open space and for production of agricultural
products; and

Encourage retention of large agricultural lots to assure viable agricultural units.
4-8
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides guidance for
assessing the significance of potential environmental impacts. A project is found to
have a significant impact if implementation of the project would result in the following:
 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use; or
 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract
In addition to the above impacts, Sacramento County has determined that a project
would have a significant impact if the project would:
 Introduce incompatible uses in the vicinity of existing agricultural uses.
IMPACT: LOSS OF FARMLAND
The goal of the Sacramento County General Plan Agricultural Element is to protect
important farmlands from conversion and encroachment and to conserve agricultural
resources. The intent of the policies in the General Plan is to protect prime, statewide
importance, unique and local importance farmland located outside the USB from urban
encroachment. Policy AG-5 requires that projects resulting in the conversion of more
than fifty (50) acres of farmland shall be mitigated within Sacramento County on a ratio
of 1:1.
The proposed project will construct a radio tower with a transmission facility and other
equipment at the base of the tower. There will be three anchor points for the guy wires
located 325 feet from the base of the tower and an access road to the tower will be
constructed. The total maximum impact area will be 0.78 acres. The land around the
site is used mostly for cattle grazing. This is well under the 50-acre threshold
established by Policy AG-5 of the General Plan. Approval of the proposed project will
not result in a significant loss of Farmland of Local Importance; the impact to loss of
farmland is considered less than significant.
IMPACT: CONFLICT WITH EXISTING ZONING OR WILLIAMSON ACT
CONTRACT
The project site is located on a parcel that is under an active Williamson Act Contract
(Contract 69-AP-030.2). The contract was established in 1969 and the Board of
4-9
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Supervisors at that time, by resolution, adopted the contract and rules governing the
administration of the agricultural preserve. The rules of each agricultural preserve
specify the uses allowed. Generally, any commercial agricultural use will be permitted
within any agricultural preserve.
Exhibit C of the Williamson Act Contract for the project parcel (69-AP-030.2) provides a
list of compatible uses. Subdivision (m) of this list states that radio, television or
microwave antennas and transmitters are compatible uses. The installation of the
proposed radio tower would not result in a conflict with the existing active Williamson
Act Contract. It should be noted that although the contract identifies uses that are
compatible with agricultural uses, the Zoning Code requires the issuance of a permit for
new communication facilities (such as a wireless monopole) in any land use zone.
The proposed project is an application for a use permit for the construction and
operation of a 500-foot tall FM radio tower. The approval of the project would not result
in a breach of the existing active Williamson Act Contract and would not result in a
cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, the proposed project does not
conflict with the existing active Williamson Act Contract; impacts are considered less
than significant.
IMPACT: INTRODUCTION OF AN INCOMPATIBLE USE IN THE VICINITY OF
EXISTING AGRICULTURAL USES
The intent of this impact statement is to be consistent with the goals of the Agricultural
Element of the General Plan which are to protect the County’s agricultural lands from
conversion and encroachment and to conserve agricultural resources.
The Sacramento County Agricultural Commissioner (J. Jensen) submitted a comment
letter during the Initial Study phase of the environmental analysis (dated April 5, 2012)
and provided the following concern:
Our only comment on this project is that it will add to the challenges already
faced by the aerial applicators (crop dusters) that apply twice a week at the Davis
Ranch to the sweet corn and also to Dairyland Seed and Utterback Sod that also
use aerial applicators. Another tower in the area increases risk to the aerial
applicators.
During the review period for the Notice of Preparation, the Agricultural Commissioner
provided an additional comment letter (July 13, 2012) that further explains the impact of
the tower on Davis Ranch. The Agricultural Commissioner made the following
statement:
The adjacent property is currently farmed by the Davis Farm and is rotated
through various crops including sweet corn. The raising of sweet corn in the
Sacramento Valley requires the use of pesticides to keep it free of Lepidoptera
pests and these pesticide applications are made by aerial application. At this
site, fixed-wing aerial application is performed by Harding Flying Service and is
4-10
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
often performed as much as twice a week during the growing season. The
current projected placement of the KXPR tower would place it in the turning area
of the crop duster and present a dangerous flying hazard for the pilot of the
plane. There are already several obstacles (school, roadway, treeline, etc.) that
make applications to this field difficult and the addition of the tower and its guy
wires would make applications to this field so unsafe that most, if not all, fixedwing crop dusters would refuse to make the application.
Approval of the KXPR tower at its current projected site would limit the type of
crop that may be grown successfully on this adjacent agricultural property and
have a negative effect on the Davis Farm as a business. Please consider this
issue and include it in the considerations of the Environmental Impact Report that
you are preparing.
The issues and concerns identified in the Agricultural Commissioner’s letter are
discussed below.
The project site is located just north/ northeast of Davis Ranch, Utterback Sod and
Dairyland Seed agricultural operations. These three agricultural producers are located
on Prime Farmland, as mapped by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the Department of Conservation (refer to Plate AG -2).
Davis Ranch is a local farmstead with a produce stand located on the north side of
Jackson Highway, between Dillard Road and Meiss Road. The farmlands of Davis
Ranch are located on both sides of Jackson Highway (refer to Plate AG -2). Davis
Ranch is known for their Sloughhouse sweet corn, which is grown during the summer
months. Davis Ranch also grows pumpkins in their fields. The pumpkins and sweet
corn rotate amongst the fields; however, the pumpkin patches are limited to a certain
type of soil. Davis Ranch grows the sweet corn in batches in order for the sweet corn to
be harvested continuously throughout the summer months.
For the Davis Ranch operation, fertilizer and pesticides are applied to the sweet corn via
fixed wing aerial application (crop dusting). Aerial applications occur at least twice a
week, up to three times a week for Davis Ranch crops. In addition, some other
agricultural operations in this area utilize aerial applications.
AERIAL APPLICATIONS
Aerial application for Davis Ranch is currently performed by Harding Flying Services,
located in Clarksburg. In personal communications with the pilot (B. Holtz), the process
of aerial applications at Davis Ranch was explained. The pilot provided a graphic to
illustrate why the location of the tower will be a hazard to him when he has to apply to
certain fields. This graphic is provided on Plate AG -3. The graphic shows the location
of the tower as a white triangle.
4-11
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate AG -3: Aerial Application Flight Paths
-Location of the proposed 500-foot tower is represented by the
triangle
-Flight paths are shown in purple and red.
-The flight patterns are wide when fully loaded; patterns become
tighter as material is applied and the airplane becomes lighter.
-The blue markers show the current obstacles (existing towers and
the school).
-The green ovals indicate raising terrain.
-The yellow lines are an example of a headland pass for Field #6
Field 11
Field 13
Field 9
Field 6
Field 10
Field 7
Field 8
4-12
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
The pesticides or fertilizers are loaded at the applicator’s home base and the pilot then
flies a plane with full tanks to Davis Ranch and makes his applications. Flights for
application must be in the same direction as the row crops; row crops are planted based
on the lay of the land and must follow drainage patterns. At the beginning, when the
plane is heavy with all the chemicals loaded, the pilot has to make wide turns for each
pass. The turns become tighter as the plane reduces in weight. Currently, there are
existing obstacles that the pilot has to avoid. Those obstacles include power lines
located throughout the field, a cellular tower (100 feet above ground level), the
Cosumnes River Elementary school, rising terrain near Kiefer Landfill, Jackson
Highway, the trees of the Deer Creek riparian corridor and four (4) 199 feet tall AM
guyed radio towers (refer to Plate AG -3). The pilot must avoid these AM radio towers
as much as possible. The pilot has to make applications typically in the early morning
for the safety of the children and staff at Cosumnes River Elementary school.
As shown on Plate AG -3, the proposed tower will be in the direct path of turn-arounds
required during aerial applications, especially for applications to field 6. In personal
communications with the pilot (B. Holtz, June 14, 2012), the pilot stated that since the
tower is 500 feet in height above ground level, he will not be able to fly over it (like he
can do with the cellular tower if needed) and the guy wires will not be visible until it is
too late. The pilot noted that his concern is not necessarily the tower itself, but the guy
wires. The guy wires, no matter how they are marked or lit, are hard to see during
applications. The guy wires may blend with the sky depending on the weather
conditions and may be hard to see due to the location of the sun. In addition, keeping
an eye on the tower, the existing towers, the trees, the school, and the roadway will
make it even more difficult and risky for him, and all these hazards combined put his life
and his employees’ lives at risk. This is a risk that he is not willing to take. Refer to the
Public Safety chapter for a further discussion of the risks to the pilot during aerial
applications.
ALTERNATIVES TO FIXED WING AERIAL APPLICATION
HELICOPTER APPLICATION
The proponents of the project have suggested the use of helicopters instead of planes
for applications, noting that helicopters do not need a large space for turnarounds and
can apply in much tighter spaces, thus making helicopters more efficient and safer. The
owner of Davis Ranch reached out to an existing helicopter service to request a quote
for applications; he never received a response to his request. Staff of the Planning and
Environmental Review Division researched the feasibility of using helicopters at Davis
Ranch.
Staff contacted the California Agricultural Aircraft Association (CAAA) and spoke with a
member (R. Stocker) of CAAA regarding the use of helicopters as a viable alternative to
plane applications. The CAAA is a non-profit trade association representing the
professional aerial application industry in California. The stated mission of CAAA is to
“Support individual and industry professionalism, promote ethical and safe standards of
4-13
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
operation, and secure the future of agricultural aviation”. CAAA provides members with
benefits that include discounts, continuing education, tracking of completed continuing
education, calibration services and newsletters that updates agricultural pilots on
regulatory language and legislation that may impact the professional aerial application
industry.
Modern agricultural pilots use specialized aircraft that uses Global Positioning Satellite
(GPS) software allowing for precise applications, sophisticated dispersal systems
monitoring flow rates for optimum dispersal and calibration software that assures the
correct amount of chemical is applied. The agricultural pilot is also a highly trained
professional. The average agricultural pilot has over 15 years of ag flying time and
must attend continuing education courses to stay up to date on industry trends, product
information and pesticide regulations to continue to safely and effectively protect the
environment, the food supply and citizens. Agricultural pilots are required to be licensed
as a commercial pilot by the FAA, including annual medical certifications, must be
licensed with the California Department of Pesticide Regulation as a Pilot applicator and
register annually with the respective County Agricultural Commissioner.
Mr. Russ Stocker is an agricultural pilot and has been doing aerial applications for over
40 years. In the absence of a site-specific quote, Mr. Stocker was asked to provide
some general statements regarding the possibility of using a helicopter for aerial
application at Davis Ranch (personal communications, July 2, 2012). Mr. Stocker said
that the cost for use of helicopters for applications would likely be much higher per acre
than what Davis Ranch is currently paying Harding Flying Services. The cost that a
helicopter flying service would charge would be determined by their upfront cost to do
the job. The upfront costs consist of time, resources (money) and maintenance of the
helicopter. Helicopter rotors are replaced based on the number of rotations or the hours
in flight. If aerial applications were to be done via a helicopter, the helicopter would
likely be loaded onto a truck and taken to and from the site to reduce the number of
flight hours, as helicopter parts are quite expensive. In addition, due to the small size of
a helicopter, the chemicals for applications would have to be trucked to the site and
mixed onsite. The helicopter would then make applications, stopping frequently for
more chemicals. It is likely that the total cost for this process would far exceed the
income that could be provided for an operation the size of Davis Ranch. The cost could
be much more per acre than the current rate for fixed wing applications; therefore,
helicopters for aerial applications may not be a viable alternative for Davis Ranch.
GROUND APPLICATION
Another alternative to aerial applications that needs to be considered is ground
application. The owner of Davis Ranch was asked about the feasibility of using ground
applications instead of aerial applications for those fields that the pilot would not be able
to apply to (fields 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 13). Research into aerial application versus
ground application found the Illinois Department of Agriculture website on “Aerial
Pesticide Application Q and A”
(http://www.agr.state.il.us/Environment/Pesticide/aerialap.html) which states the
following:
4-14
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Aerial application is often the most efficient and most economical way to apply
crop protection products, fertilizer and even seed to grow and protect crops such
as corn, soybeans and wheat. Aircraft can treat fields when the soil moisture is
too great for the operation of ground application equipment and can also apply
necessary crop protection products when the crop canopies become too tall or
are too thick for ground application equipment. When pests or diseases threaten
a crop, time of application becomes critical. An airplane or helicopter can
accomplish more in one hour than ground equipment can in a single day.
The County Agricultural Commissioner was contacted to verify the validity of the above
statement and how it relates to the Davis Ranch operation. The Agricultural
Commissioner stated that in the case of Davis Ranch, the corn stalks can get very tall
(up to six to seven feet in height), which would prove to be a challenge for ground
equipment. In addition, the corn is irrigated on a 10-day schedule so the field would
often be too wet for ground equipment to get through the fields. The Agricultural
Commissioner also noted that aerial applications are occurring at least twice a week
during the growing season and it would take much longer for ground equipment to make
these applications compared to effectiveness of aerial applications. For growing the
Sloughhouse sweet corn and pumpkins at the Davis Ranch, it is most effective to use
aerial applications over ground applications. Furthermore, the Agricultural
Commissioner finds that in her opinion, all of these factors make ground application not
an economically feasible option in this situation (personal communications, July 16,
2012).
In addition, the owner believes that the use of ground applications is not very effective
for certain crops such as sequentially planted sweet corn; a reduction in crop yields
would be anticipated with this type of application. This is due to the fact that for ground
applications, for every 24 rows of crops, 6 rows would have to be removed for the
equipment to spray evenly. This would result in up to 25% crop loss for Fields 6, 7 8,
10, 11 and 13. These six fields total approximately 188 acres. To accommodate
ground application, a minimum of 47 acres would be removed from production.
DAVIS RANCH CROP PRODUCTION
Information from the owner of Davis Ranch indicates that he voluntarily removed Field 7
(approximately 28 acres) from the sweet corn rotations due to the close proximity to the
Cosumnes River Elementary School. If the tower were constructed in its proposed
location, it is expected that the pilot will not apply to fields 6 and 7, and possibly fields 8,
10, 11 and 13 due to their location in relation to the proposed tower (refer to Plate AG
-3). As stated above, there are no aerial applications to field 7 and therefore, the loss in
production to field 7 due to the proposed tower is minimal. Field 6 is approximately 45
acres in size and there is a potential for a significant reduction in the yield of sweet corn
from this farmland as well as its quality from the perspective of consumer acceptance
because of either limit on aerial application or use of ground-based applications.
As noted in the Public Safety chapter, the location of the proposed tower is the safety
issue at hand. If the tower and guy wires were not located within the turn around radius
4-15
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
for the pilot, this impact would not exist. Therefore, as proposed, the project would be
considered an introduction of an incompatible use in the vicinity of existing agricultural
uses. The direct effect of the proposed tower on the existing Davis Ranch agricultural
operations is considered a significant effect on the environment since there is a
potential loss of yield from these fields as a result of changing application techniques.
There are currently no viable alternatives to maintaining the current yield and quality of
sweet corn and other produce from the Davis Ranch farmlands if aerial application is
not feasible; therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
None Available
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable
IMPACT: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The proposed project will not result in cancellation of an existing active Williamson Act
Contract, nor would it result in a significant loss of farmlands. The cumulative impacts
as they relate to these two criteria of agricultural resources are considered less than
significant.
The proposed tower would be a potentially incompatible use since it is in close proximity
to active farmland operations that rely on aerial application. The addition of this tower,
in combination with the existing vertical obstacles (other towers, trees, power lines, etc.)
and land uses (Cosumnes River Elementary School), results in a significant cumulative
effect since continued use of aerial applicators could be hazardous to pilots. However,
this impact does not translate to a significant cumulative impact to farmlands since
Davis Ranch would have the ability to plant a different crop that does not require the
use of fixed wing aerial applications and the project does not result in a physical loss of
farmlands.
The owner of Davis Ranch has indicated that there are no other options for aerial
applicators due to the current obstacles. In personal correspondence with Mr. Stocker
of the CAAA, he has stated that there is an overhead cost for aerial applicators
(primarily the cost of aircraft maintenance) and that at some point, either the price
charged to apply per acre has to increase or the payment for services will not exceed
those overhead costs and thus the job would not be fulfilled. It has been suggested that
the inability to spray at Davis Ranch could make it so that it is no longer economically
feasible to spray at the smaller operations in the area. However, this impact is
speculative and further discussion is not required under CEQA.
4-16
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
5 PUBLIC SAFETY
INTRODUCTION
This section addresses public safety risks associated with the proposed radio tower.
Elements considered in this section include hazards to aircraft navigation,
electromagnetic fields and tower failure.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was created to provide for the safe and
efficient use of national airspace. The FAA is an agency under the United States
Department of Transportation. FAA’s major roles and responsibilities include:

Regulating civil aviation to promote safety;

Encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology;

Developing and operating a system of air traffic control and navigation for both
civil and military aircraft;

Researching and developing the National Airspace System and civil aeronautics;

Developing and carrying out programs to control aircraft noise and other
environmental effects of civil aviation; and

Regulating U.S. commercial space transportation.
The FAA accomplishes their roles and responsibilities through Title 14 (Aeronautics and
Space) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The FAA also issues Advisory
Circulars (AC) which establishes standards and rules for aircraft, pilots and navigation.
The FM radio tower for the project is proposed to be 500 feet tall above ground
elevation; the existing ground elevation at the site is approximately 110± feet above
mean sea level.
According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), an aeronautical study under the
provisions of 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 44718 (Structures Interfering with
Air Commerce) and Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77 (Safe, Efficient
Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace) is required to determine if there will
5-1
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
5 - PUBLIC SAFETY
be any substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable
airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Title 14, part 77.17 (Obstruction Standards) states:
(a) an existing object, including a mobile object, is, and a future object would be
an obstruction to air navigation if it is of greater height than any of the following
heights or surfaces:
(1) A height of 499 feet AGL (above ground level) at the site of the object.
(2) A height that is 200 feet AGL, or above the established airport
elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the established
reference point of an airport, excluding heliports, with its longest runway
more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height increases in the
proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile from the airport up
to a maximum of 499 feet.
Pursuant to the above section, notice to FAA is required so that FAA can determine if
the proposed radio tower would constitute an obstruction to air navigation or to
navigational/communication facilities.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC)
BACKGROUND – ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (EMFS)
A radio wave is a type of electromagnetic (EM) wave. Waves are the movement of
energy from one place to another, and an EM wave consists of oscillating electric and
magnetic fields. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992) has provided the
public with the following explanation of electric and magnetic fields:
Electric charges create electric fields. Electric charges which move (i.e., electric
current) creates magnetic fields. An appliance that is plugged in, and therefore
connected to a source of electricity, has an electric field even when the appliance
is turned off. To produce a magnetic field, however, the appliance must not only
be plugged in, but also operating, so that the current is flowing.
The electric current we use in our everyday life produces certain kinds of electric
and magnetic fields. There are many other kinds of electric and magnetic fields
as well, found throughout nature. The term ‘electromagnetic’ field implies that
the electric and magnetic fields are interrelated.
These fields can be characterized by either their wavelength or their frequency,
which are related. The amount of energy an electric or magnetic field can carry
depends on the frequency and wavelength of the field. The wavelength
describes how far it is between one peak on the wave and the next. The
5-2
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
5 - PUBLIC SAFETY
frequency, measured in hertz [Hz], describes how many wave peaks pass by in
one second of time.
The range of wavelengths and frequencies of electromagnetic radiation is known as the
electromagnetic spectrum. The low end of the spectrum includes electric and magnetic
fields produced by every day electrical appliances. At the top of the spectrum are Xrays and gamma rays. It should be noted that electromagnetic energy is common,
resulting from numerous manmade and natural sources. Manmade sources include
electrical wiring, utility lines, appliances, computers and television and radio broadcasts.
The human body generates and emits electromagnetic energy to some degree. The
earth’s magnetic field and the sun’s radiation provide constant exposure to
electromagnetic energy.
According to the EPA (1992), the term “radiation” simply means energy, which is
transmitted by waves. At the lower end of the electromagnetic spectrum, including radio
waves, are non-ionizing forms of radiation. Non-ionizing radiation cannot strip electrons
from atoms, while ionizing radiation (such as X-rays) can. In a statement prepared for
the California Public Utilities Commission (1991), Dr. Arthur W. Guy has stated:
“…Biological effects induced by NIER [non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation] are
related to the absorption of energy in the tissues of particular organisms, whether
those organisms are human beings, rats or laboratory specimens. Therefore,
standards for maximum safe NEIR exposure are set to limit the specific
absorption rate (SAR) below a maximum permissible level as averaged over the
human body…”
RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) SAFETY STANDARDS
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates interstate and international
communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District
of Columbia and U.S. territories. The FCC was established by the Communications Act
of 1934 and operates as an independent U.S. government agency overseen by
Congress. The responsibilities of the FCC include the following:

Developing and implementing regulatory programs;

Processing applications for licenses and other filing;

Encouraging the development of innovative services;

Conducting investigations and analyzing complaints; and

Public safety and homeland security.
The Office of Engineering and Technology of the FCC oversees radio frequency (RF)
safety. The FCC is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969
to evaluate the effect of emissions from FCC-regulated transmitters on the quality of the
human environment. Several organizations, such as the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), and
5-3
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
5 - PUBLIC SAFETY
the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) have issued
recommendations for human exposure to RF and electromagnetic fields. In August
1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted new guidelines, for
evaluating the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions (FCC, 1996). The
new guidelines effectively set a national radio frequency (RF) exposure standard based
on specific absorption rate (SAR) limits as specified within the 1992 revision of the ANSI
and IEEE standards and the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits as
recommended by the NCRP.
The 1992 ANSI standard, upon which the FCC guidelines are based, specifies two tiers
of exposure criteria, one tier for “controlled environments” (usually involving workers)
and a second, more stringent tier for “uncontrolled environments” (usually involving the
general public). The 1992 standard is generally more stringent in the evaluation of lowpower devices such as hand-held radios and cellular telephones than the previous 1982
standard. The 1992 guidelines reduce the allowable specific absorption rate (SAR)
level from localized exposure (e.g., hand-held devices) to 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg)
for the general public (uncontrolled environments) from the previous limit of 4 W/kg, as
averaged over 1 gram of tissue. This revised value (1.6 W/kg) is the same as the 1986
NCRP value for the recommended limits of general pubic exposure levels. Per the
FCC, the more conservative limits do not arise from a fundamental change in the RF
safety criteria for SAR, but from a precautionary desire for more rigors in the derivation
of factors which allows limits MPE to be derived from SAR limits.
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
assessing the significance of potential environmental impacts. A project is normally
found to have a significant impact if implementation of the project would result in the
following:
 Result in a substantial adverse effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable
airspace by aircraft;
 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; and
 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
Not identified in the CEQA Guidelines for assessing potential significant environmental
effects, but analyzed for this project, is the impact to people or structures due to tower
failure.
5-4
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
5 - PUBLIC SAFETY
IMPACT: ADVERSELY AFFECT AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION
Pursuant to the federal regulations, any height exceeding 500 feet above ground level
will result in a substantial adverse effect and would warrant a Determination of Hazard
to Air Navigation. The applicant has therefore contacted the FAA regarding the
proposed FM radio tower. The FAA reviewed the project and conducted an
aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Section 44718 and Title 14 of the
CFR, part 77 regarding the proposed radio tower. The aeronautical study performed by
the FAA analyzed the impact of the tower on the nearest airport reference point, which
was identified as the Rancho Murieta Airport, located approximately 3.07 nautical miles
east of the site. Rancho Murieta Airport is the closest civilian public-use landing area.
The FAA aeronautical study concluded that the cumulative impact of the structure, when
combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. The study did not
disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public-use or military airports or
navigational facilities. The structure would not affect the capacity of any known existing
or planned civilian public-use or military airport. FAA therefore was able to make the
determination that the proposed structure would not have a substantial adverse effect
on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air
navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. FAA made this
determination provided the following conditions are met:
1. The structure is marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular
70/7460-1 K Change 2, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, paint/red lights –
Chapter 3 (Marked), 4, 5 (Red), & 12.
2. FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be completed
and returned to the issuing office any time the project is abandoned or within
5 days after the construction reaches it greatest height (7460-2, Part II).
The FAA issued a Determination of No Hazard To Air Navigation on December 14,
2011.
Staff (G. Rickelton) of the Sacramento County Airport System (SCAS) reviewed the
proposed project and recommended conditions of approval. Those conditions require
that the applicant submit to SCAS the FAA Forms 7460-1 as required under Federal
Aviation Regulations Part 77 for both the final project and the construction (if needed) of
the project. SCAS is also requesting that any conditions placed on the project by the
FAA be submitted to SCAS and complied with. A copy of the issued Determination of
No Hazard to Air Navigation has been submitted to SCAS. SCAS also requests that the
applicant provide proof of compliance with the conditions/restrictions set forth by FAA.
The project has been issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation by the FAA
and the FAA has placed conditions on the project to ensure that the proposed project
will not be a hazard to air navigation.
5-5
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
5 - PUBLIC SAFETY
It should be noted that prior to the notification for the proposed project, an identical
submittal at the same site (reference number: 2011-AWP-4259-OE), with a different
sponsor and a slight change in frequency (from 88.9 MHz to the now proposed 89.9
MHz) was analyzed. FAA conducted an aeronautical study and details of that prior
(nearly identical) project were circulated as a Public Notice in order to gather
aeronautical information. FAA noted that no objections or comments were submitted
from that Public Notice; therefore, since the details of the proposed project did not
substantially change from the prior project, FAA did not re-circulate a Public Notice for
the proposed project.
The FAA Public Notice did not result in any comments or objections to the placement of
a 500-foot tall tower at the project site, however, adjacent to the site are agricultural
operations that require the use of aerial applications (crop dusting). Information from
adjacent landowners (Davis Ranch in particular) indicates that the location of the
proposed tower is within the turn-around radius of the fixed wing planes that perform
aerial applications to sweet corn on the Davis Ranch (this is also discussed in the
Agricultural Resources Chapter). The height of the tower at 500 feet above ground
elevation and the guy wires spanning from the tower will make it difficult to navigate
around the tower, avoid hitting the guy wires, avoid the trees of Deer Creek and make
sure the chemicals are applied correctly and within the appropriate fields. The
chemicals must not enter any water body and must not drift off of the farm site. Aerial
applicators are regulated by the FAA but the flight path of the aerial applicator is exempt
from the established flight paths of FAA since aerial applicators are flying at a low
altitude and their flight path can frequently change depending on the weather conditions
or obstacles. Aerial applicators are also regulated by the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation.
Davis Ranch currently employs Harding Flying Services (of Clarksburg, CA) to apply
fertilizer and pesticides to sweet corn. In correspondences with the pilot from Harding
Flying Services (B. Holtz, personal communication, June 14, 2012), Mr. Holtz has
indicated that there are already obstacles and hazards that he faces when flying the
Davis Ranch fields. Those obstacles and hazards include: power lines within the fields,
trees along Deer Creek north of the fields, four 199-foot tall AM radio towers across
from the Kiefer Landfill (northwest of the site) on the south side of Kiefer Boulevard, an
approximately 100-foot tall cell tower near the intersection of Jackson Highway and
Kiefer Boulevard (south of the site), Jackson Highway south of the Davis Ranch and the
Cosumnes River Elementary school on the south side of Jackson Highway (shown on
Plate PS -1). The pilot has to apply typically in the early morning to prevent spraying
conflicts with the elementary school and the children and staff attending the school, as
well as traffic on Jackson Highway.
5-6
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
5 - PUBLIC SAFETY
Plate PS -1: Existing Obstacles for Fixed Wing Aerial Applications
Existing four (4) 199 feet
tall AM guyed radio
towers
Example of a
location for a
headland pass due
to trees
Power Lines
Cellular tower
(100 feet in
height)
Trees
Cosumnes River Elementary School
5-7
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
5 - PUBLIC SAFETY
Mr. Holtz also stated that installation of the tower in the proposed location would result
in very limited options for a safe emergency landing if an engine were to fail. The only
area where there are no existing hazards is in the direction of the proposed project site.
The guy wires are the most dangerous component of the tower proposal. Generally,
accidents between planes and cables result in fatalities (personal communications,
CAAA, 2012). The California Agricultural Aircraft Association (CAAA) is a non-profit
trade association representing the professional aerial application industry in California.
The stated mission of the CAAA is to “Support individual and industry professionalism,
promote ethical and safe standards of operation, and secure the future of agricultural
aviation”. The CAAA provides members information on regulatory language and
legislation that may impact the professional aerial applicator, continuing education and
tracking of continuing education, group discounts and calibration services. The pilot, as
well as the CAAA consultant, have both noted that the guy wires, no matter how they
are marked, will be very difficult to see. This was confirmed by staff through
observation of the guy wires at the AM radio towers nearby during a site visit to observe
aerial application in progress. The guy wires are proposed to span 325 feet from the
base of the tower which provides for a large radius around the tower that would have to
be avoided by the pilot in the event an emergency landing is needed. The guy wires
would be very difficult to see and ultimately avoid.
The pilot also noted that the existing cell tower is low enough (approximately 100 feet
tall) that he can fly over it. If the design of the proposed radio tower were changed to
eliminate the guy wires, the tower would need to be almost 20 feet wide to maintain
stability and structural integrity. The pilot indicated that if this design were used, it
would be easier for him to keep an eye on the tower while flying and keep track of its
location; however, it would still be a hazard if an emergency landing is needed or if he
ever lost track of its location during a turn or during any problems he could face during
applications.
Although the proposed project will introduce an additional obstacle to the area for the
aerial applicator, the pilot is responsible to check for obstacles and evaluate the
condition of the site prior to spraying/flying. The FAA has issued a Determination of No
Hazard to Air Navigation provided the applicant complies with conditions placed on the
project. Those conditions are included as mitigation. Upon compliance, the project is
not expected to have an adverse effect upon the safe and efficient use of navigable
airspace by aircraft; impacts are considered less than significant.
PS-1
To ensure that the proposed structure would not be a hazard to air navigation,
the applicant shall mark/light the structure in accordance with FAA Advisory
Circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2, Obstruction Marking and Lighting and
paint/red lights pursuant to Chapter 3 (Marked), Chapter 4 and 5 (Red) and
Chapter 12.
5-8
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
5 - PUBLIC SAFETY
PS-2
The applicant shall complete and submit to the FAA Southwest Regional Office
FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration within five (5)
days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part II). Copies
of completed FAA Form 7460-2 shall be submitted to the Environmental
Coordinator and Sacramento County Airport Systems.
PS-3
Proof of compliance with FAA requirements above shall be submitted to the
Environmental Coordinator and Sacramento County Airport Systems.
IMPACT: RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) SAFETY
The proposed FM transmitters for this project will operate at about 89.9 MHz or about
900 kHz. The website for FCC Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) has a
frequently asked questions (FAQ) page (http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html)
regarding radio frequency (RF) safety (2010). Based on the information presented,
radio frequency emissions from antennas used for cellular and PCS transmissions
result in exposure levels on the ground that are typically substantially less than the
FCC’s limits for safe exposure. Review of past cellular or PCS antenna projects
prepared for Sacramento County consistently show that this is in fact true, as all cellular
or PCS antenna projects result in exposure levels well below the FCC safety limits.
However, radio (proposed project) and television broadcast transmission antennas use
power levels that are generally much higher than those used for cellular and PCS
antennas. For this reason, there could be a potential for higher levels of exposure to
persons on the ground. Nonetheless, all broadcast stations are required to demonstrate
compliance with FCC safety guidelines and ambient exposures to nearby persons from
such stations are typically well below FCC safety limits.
The FAQs continue on with a question whether emissions from radio and television
broadcast antennas are safe. The answer to this question is that radio and television
broadcast stations transmit their signals via RF electromagnetic waves and stations
transmit at various RF frequencies depending on the channel. On the transmitting
frequency extremes are AM radio at about 540 kHz up to 800 MHz for UHF (Ultra High
Frequency) television stations. FM radio frequencies lie between these two extremes.
The FCC requires that broadcast stations submit evidence of compliance with FCC RF
guidelines. Furthermore, public access to broadcasting antennas is normally restricted
so that individuals cannot be exposed to high-level fields that might exist near antennas.
Measurements made by the FCC, EPA and others have shown that ambient RF
radiation levels in inhabited areas near broadcasting facilities are typically well below
the exposure levels recommended by current standards and guidelines. If a station is
operating above applicable safety standards, the stations are required by FCC to bring
the station into compliance with RF guidelines. Therefore, it can be concluded that
despite the relatively high operating powers of many broadcast stations (compared to
cellular or PCS), members of the general public are unlikely to be exposed to RF levels
from broadcast towers that exceed FCC limits.
5-9
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
5 - PUBLIC SAFETY
The energy level of the broadcast antennas will be at approximately 50,000 watts;
however, this signal strength only occurs at very high elevations on the tower (above
440 feet for the proposed project and center of radiation would be about 465 feet along
the tower). This level of energy is necessary for the stations' signals to reach to the
outer radius of the coverage area. The signal is a frequency within the non-ionizing
range of light, which means the only potential effect on humans and wildlife is direct
heating from near exposure to the radiating elements (broadcast antenna). In the case
of the proposed project, the energy level is greatest near the top of the tower (at a
height greater than 450 feet above ground elevation) and near exposure would involve
being within 350 feet in front of the antennas located on top of the tower for over 30
minutes.
In the near range of the tower, such as passing motorists on Kiefer Boulevard, Jackson
Highway and local residences, the FM signal energy level will be minimal. The low level
energy at ground elevations is due to two factors. One factor is that energy levels
quickly dissipate as the signal radiates from the antenna’s surface. The second factor is
that the primary focus of the energy signal is at the top of the tower and not at ground
level near the base of the tower. Therefore, the exposure level at or near ground
elevation is minimal and the proposed antenna would not have any negative effect on
humans or wildlife, as the height of the tower prevents harmful exposure anywhere at
ground level close to the tower. The Cosumnes River Elementary school is located 0.8
miles south of the project site; the exposure to RF levels at this distance will be minimal
and will not have any adverse effect to the students or staff at the school.
The exposure RF levels for antenna maintenance workers could be much higher if work
is performed on an active tower or in areas immediately surrounding a radiating
antenna. Precautions should be made to ensure that maintenance personnel are not
exposed to unsafe RF fields. Precautions include the use of warning signs and
informing employees of the risk of exposure. There are currently no enforceable United
States Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
standards. However, in Section 1910.97(a)(2)(i) of the OSHA regulations, it states that
incident electromagnetic energy of frequencies from 10 MHz to 100 GHz, the radiation
protection guide is 10 mW/cm2 (milliwatt per square centimeter) as averaged over any
possible 0.1-hour period.
As the proposed FM radio tower will be required to comply with the FCC guidelines,
radiation levels are expected to be below the standards. The facility will have warning
signs clearly posted around the facility. Tower maintenance workers and their
employers are required to comply with OSHA regulations (such as, but not limited to
Section 1910.97 (Nonionizing Radiation)) and maintenance workers will be informed of
their risk. Compliance with established rules and regulations for worker safety and
precautions will ensure exposure to RF emissions is not harmful. Consistent with FCC
documented policy, Capital Public Radio will post required cautionary signs around the
broadcast facility.
The impacts of radio frequency emission exposure to workers or the general public from
this project is considered less than significant.
5-10
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
5 - PUBLIC SAFETY
IMPACT: TOWER FAILURE
required safety factors are specified in the Uniform Building Code. The tower and
foundation designs will be engineered to meet or exceed all requirements of the Uniform
Building Code. The codes take into account the various stress loads that could be
placed on the tower structure by earthquake, winds, storms, and any other
combinations of high-stress factors. The safety factors involved in the manufacture of
these towers and their installation results in a very large margin of safety.
The proposed triangular lattice tower will be 500 feet tall and will have grounding wires
from various heights along the tower affixed to three points on the ground approximately
325 feet away from the base of the tower.
As the proposed lattice tower and ground anchors are an engineer-designed structure
that will comply with the safety factors specified in the Uniform Building Code, tower
failure is considered extremely unlikely. However, should a rare tower failure occur, the
area within a distance equivalent to the height of the tower should be considered the fall
zone. The tower is proposed to be 500 feet tall and there are no structures within 500
feet of the base of the tower, as shown on Plate PS -2. Potential impacts as a result of
tower collapse are considered less than significant.
5-11
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
5 - PUBLIC SAFETY
Plate PS -2: Tower Fall Zone (500-foot radius)
5-12
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
6 VISUAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the visual characteristics of the project site and vicinity and the
impact on visual resources resulting from the proposed project. Elements considered in
this section include the degree of intrusiveness of the project, nighttime lighting and
scenic corridor protections.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The project area is in a rural landscape, located in eastern Sacramento County,
surrounded by large expansive agricultural lands, and Kiefer Landfill to the northwest.
The project site is located off a dirt/gravel private access driveway off of Kiefer
Boulevard. The project site is located in an area that has been used for cattle
operations/grazing. As part of the cattle operations there are fenced pastures, barns
and hay storage structures near the project site. Deer Creek and its tributary are
located south of the site. The guy wires will have to pass over the canopy of the
riparian habitat along the tributary and will anchor in grasslands located between the
tributary and Deer Creek. The riparian habitat along Deer Creek is dense and the trees
are tall and is a prominent feature in the vicinity of the project site (refer to the aerial
photo provided on Plate VR -1).
Towers have been erected in the vicinity of the project site. Near the intersection of
Kiefer Boulevard and Jackson Highway (south of the project site) is a cellular tower,
approximately 100 feet tall with an equipment area at the base of the tower. Power
poles are located along Jackson Highway, through the agricultural fields to the south of
the project site, along the east side of Kiefer Boulevard (approximately 90 feet from the
edge of pavement of the roadway) and along Latrobe Road to the east. Near Latrobe
Road and Jackson Highway there are high voltage transmission lines and towers.
These lines and towers travel north through the grazing lands. Approximately 0.8 miles
north on Kiefer Boulevard from the project site access driveway are four (4) 199 feet tall
AM radio towers, anchored by cables.
The project site is surrounded by active agricultural croplands to the south and
southwest and grazing land to the north and northeast. Kiefer Landfill is located
north/northwest of the site. Jackson Highway is located south of the site. South of the
Kiefer Boulevard/Jackson Highway intersection is Cosumnes River Elementary School
fronting Jackson Highway.
6-1
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
6 - VISUAL RESOURCES
Plate VR -1: Aerial Photo of the Surrounding Landscape
Kiefer Landfill
Nearest Residence
(4) 199 feet tall
AM Radio
Towers
Agricultural
Residential
Area
Cellular Tower
Active Farmlands
School
6-2
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
There are potential unavoidable aesthetic impacts usually associated with this type of
facility, such as the visual obtrusiveness of the tower. The proposed tower will be 500
feet tall and will be about 42 inches in diameter, anchored with guy wires at three
locations around the tower. Residents are generally considered sensitive receptors
since they would notice the change in the view more so than motorists who only pass by
the site and are exposed for only a short duration of time. Due to the rural setting of the
project site, there are no sensitive receptors immediately adjacent to the site. The
nearest residential structure is located approximately 0.3 miles to the northeast.
Although it appears in Plate VR -1 that there is a residence located north of the project
site, the homes at this compound have been demolished subsequent to the date of the
aerial photograph (2009 aerial). The only structures remaining at this compound are
structures for animal husbandry. There are no sensitive receptors located at this
compound. Agricultural residential lots are located just over a mile to the southeast, at
the intersection of Latrobe Road/Indio Drive and Jackson Highway (refer to Plate VR
-1).
The applicant has provided photo simulations from different directions looking at the site
before and after project construction. Those photo simulations are provided in Plate VR
-2 through Plate VR -5 below.
The photo simulation shown on Plate VR -2, is the view from the east, taken from
Latrobe Road. Plate VR -3 shows the view from the west, from the intersection of Grant
Line Road and Kiefer Boulevard, approximately 2.3 miles away from the site. Plate VR
-4 shows the view from approximately one mile south of the site, along Jackson
Highway (State Route 16). Plate VR -4 shows the view from the north. This view is not
from a highly traveled roadway and is about 2.5 miles away.
6-3
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate VR -2: Photo Simulation (View from the East)
6-4
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate VR -3: Photo Simulation (View from the West)
6-5
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate VR -4: Photo Simulation (View from the South)
6-6
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate VR -5: Photo Simulation (View from the North)
6-7
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
REGULATORY SETTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The California Scenic Highway Program was enacted in 1962 to protect and enhance
California’s scenic beauty by identifying and conserving those portions of the State
highway system that would diminish aesthetic values of surrounding lands if changed.
A highway may be eligible for designation as “scenic” based on landscape seen by
travelers on that highway, quality of the landscape seen, and the extent development
would intrude on enjoyment of the landscape. Prior to official designation of a highway
as scenic, a city or county must nominate the highway for designation and adopt
ordinances that protect is scenic quality. The city or county then applies to the
California Department of Transportation for scenic highway approval. A list of state
scenic highways is identified in Section 263 of the Streets and Highway Code. The only
State designated Scenic Highway in Sacramento County is State Route 160 which runs
along the Sacramento River through the Delta.
COUNTY GENERAL PLAN – SCENIC HIGHWAYS
The Circulation Element of the Sacramento County General Plan contains a section on
Scenic Highways. The only State Scenic Highway in the County is River Road (State
Route 160). The County has extended protection to other roadways that have scenic
qualities by designating them as a County scenic corridor. These roadways include:
Garden Highway, the streams, sloughs and channels of the Delta, Isleton Road, River
Road and the freeways (I-5, US-50, US-80 and Highway 99). Additionally, within this
Element, the County has designated County scenic corridor protection for additional
roadways in the rural portions of the County. These roadways are Scott Road from
White Rock Road south to Latrobe Road, Latrobe Road and Michigan Bar Road (refer
to Plate VR -6). These three routes curve through the low foothills of the eastern part of
the County. The view on both sides of these roadways consists of grasslands and
grazing cattle. The project site is located in the eastern part of the County, near these
proposed scenic corridors. Due to the height of the proposed tower, it may be visible
from these roadways; therefore, the following policies of the General Plan Circulation
Element are pertinent to the proposed project:
CI-51: Strengthen the scenic corridor provisions of the Zoning Code to require design
review of all signs and other structures within the corridor, with the exception of
single family homes and agricultural related structures and appurtenances
consistent with existing zoning.
CI-58: Continue to provide scenic corridor protection for Scott Road from White Rock
Road south to Latrobe Road, Michigan Bar Road, and Twin Cities Road from
Highway 160 east to Highway 99.
6-8
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate VR -6: General Plan Designated Scenic Roadways
6-9
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
CI-61: Study additional roads which would appropriately be designated as County
Scenic Corridors. Roads to be considered are Jackson Highway in the foothills,
Stonehouse Road, approach to the City of Folsom, the balance of Twin Cities
Road, Ione Road, Meiss Road and all roads running through the Permanent
Agricultural lands.
METHODOLOGY
Physical changes brought about by a project can affect the nature and character of a
project site. These changes can affect aesthetics when they result in a site with
physical features that are out of character with their surroundings and that adversely
affect those who view the site. However, it should be noted that visual and aesthetic
impacts are generally subjective, as sensitivity to change in the urban environment
varies and individuals respond differently to these changes.
It should be stressed that the degree of impact of a project, either negative or beneficial,
differently to changes in the physical environment. Based on the CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G, a project would have a significant impact on aesthetics if it would have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State
scenic highway; substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings; and/or create a new substantial source of light and glare, which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Reasonable people can disagree as to whether alteration of visual character would be
adverse or beneficial. The project was analyzed using the principles contained within
the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
document “Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects”. Though this is not a
highway project, the document provides a visual impact framework that is broadly
applicable. The document defines visual quality by three key terms – vividness,
intactness, and unity – which are defined as follows:
♦ Vividness is a measure of the visual impression that remains in the memory of
the viewer (e.g., Niagara Falls). Vivid visual experiences are striking and
distinctive.
♦ Intactness is the visual integrity of the natural and built landscape. Intact
landscapes are unobstructed visual experiences.
♦ Unity is the coherent inter-compatibility of connected landscape elements. A
high degree of unity creates a harmonious visual pattern.
6-10
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Visual character is derived from visual pattern elements and their dominance, scale,
diversity and/or continuity. Visual pattern elements include form, line, color, and texture.
Although visual character and quality can be described objectively, there is no
established official process that will identify all areas of high visual quality. Therefore in
part, visual quality is often defined by viewer sensitivity. Viewer sensitivity is defined by
the visibility of resources in the landscape, the proximity of viewers to the visual
resource, the elevation of viewers relative to the visual resource, the frequency and
duration of views, the number of viewers, and the types and expectations of individuals
and viewer groups.
assessing the significance of potential environmental impacts. Relative to visual
resources and aesthetics, a project will normally have a significant effect on the
environment if it will:

Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista;

Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway;

Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings; or

Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area.
IMPACT: ADVERSE AFFECT ON A SCENIC VISTA OR SUBSTANTIALLY
DAMAGE SCENIC RESOURCES WITHIN A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY
The project site is not located within a designated scenic vista, nor is it located along a
State designated scenic highway; therefore, the addition of the project would not
damage any scenic resources. The impact of the project on proposed scenic corridors
in the General Plan is analyzed in the impact section titled Conflict with the Sacramento
County General Plan. This impact is considered less than significant.
6-11
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
IMPACT: SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE THE EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER OR
QUALITY OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
The project area is in a rural landscape, so there are a limited number of viewer groups
that will be impacted by the project. These groups include people driving on Jackson
Highway and Kiefer Boulevard (and to a lesser extent, some of the other roads in the
vicinity, such as Grant Line Road, Latrobe Road, Dillard Road, Meiss Road, and
Sloughhouse Road) and the residents of homes in the vicinity of the project site.
People driving on area roadways are considered to have low sensitivity. Drivers have
only a transitory view of the site and they pass by. Residents of homes, on the other
hand, typically view the surrounding landscape as an integral part of their home
environment, and are very sensitive to changes in that environment. Based on an
assessment of aerial photography, a small number of residents will have a clear view of
the tower. There is one agricultural residence located approximately 0.3 miles
northeast of the project site. Other residents are located on the south side of Latrobe
Road, on the north and south sides of Jackson Highway, in an agricultural-residential
area.
The following discussion will analyze the vividness, intactness, and unity of the project
site, from four different view points (South, North, East, and West) as defined in the
“Methodology” section.
VIVIDNESS
The site does not stand out as particularly striking or distinctive. However, adjacent to
the site is Deer Creek and its tributary. The dense riparian habitat and tall canopy of
dense trees along Deer Creek are very notable. Travelers passing by on Kiefer
Boulevard (from Grant Line Road south to Jackson Highway) will pass large open
agricultural lands and the Kiefer Landfill. Travelers will pass existing AM radio towers
that are 199 feet above ground elevation. As the road approaches Deer Creek, the
road is shaded by the canopy of the trees. As one passes Deer Creek, the landscape
opens up again to agricultural crop lands and Jackson Highway. The project site has
low vividness in and of itself; however, due to its close proximity to Deer Creek, the
vividness of the site increases to low-to-moderate.
The vividness of the site will be increased by the project; the tower will be distinctive in
the landscape. Particularly, the tower will be visible and will be a striking feature in the
landscape from the perspective of people living in the vicinity of the project site. In
addition, for those driving by the site, the landscape may linger in the memory more
post-project than it does currently. However, the rural landscape is dotted with
communication towers. The addition of the project at the project site will result in the
project site to be more striking. Though the project will make the site more striking,
raising the vividness to moderate-to-high is not due to any increase in overall site
attractiveness as a result of the project. A view can be vividly negative or vividly
positive, as determined by the intactness and unity of the view.
6-12
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
VIEW FROM THE SOUTH
The receptors south of the project site include residents near the intersection of Kiefer
Boulevard and Jackson Highway and those on Latrobe Road and Indio Drive. Other
receptors include motorists/bicyclists on Jackson Highway, Dillard Road, Indio Drive,
Latrobe Road, Meiss Road, and Sloughhouse Road. The vividness of the site would be
increased as the tower would be clearly visible above the trees (the average height of
the trees are likely 50 feet and the tower is proposed to be 500 feet tall). This is
illustrated on Plate VR -4. The vividness of the site is increased to moderate-to-high.
VIEW FROM THE NORTH
There are not many receptors north of the project site. Receptors include one
agricultural residence located about 0.3 miles to the northeast, travelers on Grant Line
Road (and possibly White Rock Road, up to two miles away from the site) and Kiefer
Boulevard, as well as workers at Kiefer Landfill. The residential receptor would clearly
see the tower and the tower would appear almost twice as tall as what is shown in Plate
VR -4 due to the close proximity of the residence to the project site. This assumption is
made since the view shown in Plate VR -4 is from a distance of approximately one mile
and the residence is located less than one half mile (0.3 miles), thus the scale of the
tower would be almost doubled for this distance. The vividness of the site for the
residential receptor would be increased to high.
The workers at Kiefer Landfill will either not see the tower due to their location inside the
landfill or the tower will be noticeable in the horizon. Those driving on area roadways
north of the site will see the tower; however due to the increased distances, the tower
will not linger in the memory of those travelers as much as it does for those driving
south of the site (refer to Plate VR -5). In addition, due to the elevation of Kiefer
Landfill, the landfill will intermittently block the tower from view along Grant Line Road.
Those traveling on Kiefer Boulevard from Grant Line Road will be approaching the
tower from the north and the tower will be visible. The vividness of the tower would be
increased to moderate. However, there are other distractions along Kiefer Boulevard
that include the entrance to Kiefer Landfill and the existing four 199 feet tall guyed AM
radio towers. The vividness of the site from the north is moderate.
VIEW FROM THE EAST
The receptors east of the site include travelers on Latrobe Road, agricultural residences
along Latrobe Road and the residences of Rancho Murieta. Plate VR -2 shows a photo
simulation of the view from the east looking west towards the project site. The point of
reference for this photo simulation is from Latrobe Road, located approximately one
mile east of the site. The vividness of the project site for those on Latrobe Road would
be moderate since the proposed tower is not expected to substantially encroach on the
landscape and be a striking feature. In addition, as shown in Plate VR -2, the existing
high voltage transmission tower will be a more striking feature than the proposed tower.
For the residences of Rancho Murieta, the tower will not be a striking feature due to
topography and distance from the project site. Rancho Murieta is located approximately
6-13
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
three miles from the site. There is a ridge located between the site and Rancho Murieta
(located north of Bevan Street and Meta Court), rising up to elevation 230 feet above
mean sea level. The tower site is approximately 100 feet above mean sea level.
Rancho Murieta homes are located about 180 to 190 feet above mean sea level. The
ridge would block most of the tower from view. From Rancho Murieta, the vividness of
the site does not change as a result of the proposed tower and the vividness will remain
low-to-moderate from the viewpoint of the residences of Rancho Murieta.
VIEW FROM THE WEST
The receptors west of the project site include travelers on Jackson Highway, Grant Line
Road and a few agricultural residences. Plate VR -3 shows a photo simulation of the
view of the site from the intersection of Grant Line Road and Kiefer Boulevard. This
viewpoint is approximately two miles away from the site. At this distance, the
topography of land (mostly Kiefer Landfill) will block most of the tower from view. The
vividness of the site will remain low-to-moderate from this viewpoint.
INTACTNESS
The site has moderate to high intactness. Viewers mostly see open agricultural land
and a dense canopy of trees along Deer Creek as it passes through the landscape.
Past cattle operations are evident at the site; the abandoned pastures are not visible
from the roadway, but the barns and hay shelters are visible from Kiefer Boulevard.
Being a rural area, there are existing tower intrusions that have been erected to meet
the demands of the communication and energy needs of a growing population.
Northwest of the site there are four AM radio towers that are erected to a height of 199
feet above ground elevation, anchored with guy wires, with an equipment area at
ground elevation. To the south of the site, along Kiefer Boulevard, just north of Jackson
Highway, is a cellular tower with multiple arrays as there is at least one collocation on
the tower, approximately 100 feet tall, with an equipment shelter at the base of the
tower. Along Latrobe Road, southeast of the site, there are high voltage electrical
transmission lines and towers that line the landscape. The main visual benefit of the
current site condition is the past agricultural operations and the current undeveloped
state of the site, providing a feeling of openness. The addition of the tower, guy wires
and equipment shelter will create a visual “block’ in the sense that it will draw the eye to
the nearby encroachment rather than drawing the eye out elsewhere to the open areas
of the landscape. The addition of the project will degrade the “openness” of the current
views, even though viewers will be able to see beyond the site and tower. The project
would result in the intactness to be reduced to moderate levels. The reason a rating of
low is not given is due to the existing tower intrusions in the vicinity of the site and that
the tower will not take up a large area of space and thus take up a large portion of the
viewshed.
6-14
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
VIEW FROM THE SOUTH
The intactness of the project site with its surroundings is moderate-to-high. The existing
cellular tower near the intersection of Kiefer Boulevard and Jackson Highway obstructs
the intactness of the agricultural landscape. For those receptors south of the site, the
intactness of the viewshed including the site would be moderate. The addition of the
tower would further degrade the “openness” of the current views, even though viewers
will be able to see beyond the tower. The profile of the tower is slim and would not take
up a large portion of the viewshed. The intactness of the project site after construction
of the proposed tower would remain moderate.
VIEW FROM THE NORTH
The view of the project site from the north provides for a high level of intactness of the
project site with its surroundings. From the north, there is one sensitive receptor in
close proximity to the project site and there are not many obstructions within the
viewshed. The sensitive receptor is an agricultural residence approximately 0.3 miles to
the northeast. The tower would be considerably more noticeable for this receptor. It is
expected that the tower would appear twice the size as what is shown in Plate VR -4.
The intactness of the site from the viewpoint of this residence would be decreased to
the moderate-to-low as a result of project construction. A rating of low intactness is not
given due to the slim profile of the tower and that viewers would be able to see beyond
the tower as the tower would not occupy a large portion of the viewshed.
For travelers on Grant Line Road and White Rock Road, the addition of the proposed
tower would not substantially degrade the “openness” of the current views due to the
distance of the sensitive receptor from the site (greater than two miles), and due to the
fact that the profile of the tower is slim and would not take up a large portion of the
viewshed. The intactness of the site from these view points would be decreased to
moderate.
VIEW FROM THE WEST
From Grant Line Road and Jackson Highway, the landscape consists of some
agricultural residences and agricultural lands (mostly grazing land and some productive
farms). From Grant Line Road (northwest of project site), the landscape consists of
emerging residential development on the west and rural landscapes to the east. Along
Grant Line Road, near Glory Lane are four 399 feet tall AM guyed radio towers. These
radio towers are lit at night consistent with FAA lighting and marking standards for
towers exceeding 200 feet in height (FAA Advisory Circular 70-7460-1K). Depending on
the viewer’s location west of the project site, the tower will be barely noticeable due to
the project site’s distance from receptors; and, at different vantage points, the tower
would be blocked from view due to the topography of the landscape (i.e., Kiefer
Landfill). The level of intactness from this view is moderate-to-high and the addition of
the project will result in the intactness to be moderate since the proposed tower will not
result in the “openness” of the viewshed to be substantially degraded (refer to Plate VR
-3).
6-15
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
VIEW FROM THE EAST
The view from the east contains an existing obstruction to the “openness” of the
landscape. From some vantage points east of the site, the existing obstruction consists
of high voltage transmission towers (refer to Plate VR -2). The high voltage
transmission tower creates the visual “block” as discussed above. The intactness of the
project site and surroundings from this view point is moderate. The intactness will
remain moderate with the addition of the proposed tower. For the residences of Rancho
Murieta, the tower will not be visually intrusive due to the distance (Rancho Murieta is
located over three miles to the east from the project site) and topography of the
landscape; therefore the intactness of the project site post project from the view point of
Rancho Murieta will remain moderate.
UNITY
The site is highly unified. As previously described, the site was used for cattle
operations and cattle operations are common to the agricultural rural landscape. The
project will result in the construction of a 500-foot tall tower, guy wires to anchor the
tower and an equipment shelter. As there are other towers located throughout the
landscape, the addition of the proposed project would decrease the unity of the project
site to moderate. A low rating for unity would be given if there were no other
communication towers or electrical transmission towers in the vicinity of the project site.
VIEW FROM THE SOUTH
Similar to intactness, the existing cell tower disrupts the unity of the agricultural rural
setting of the landscape which provides for a moderate-to-high level of unity pre-project.
The addition of the project will decrease the unity of the project site to moderate. A low
rating for unity is not given due to the existing cellular tower in this viewshed.
VIEW FROM THE NORTH
The addition of the tower to the project site will result in the unity of the site with its
surroundings to be reduced to moderate. As previously stated, there is one residential
receptor in close proximity to the project site which is not a substantial number of
affected receptors. Most receptors (motorists) will be viewing the project site from a
considerable distance (greater than two miles).
VIEW FROM THE WEST
There are less sensitive receptors located west of the project site compared to the south
and these viewer groups west of the site are located at considerable distances from the
project site. The unity of the site is high and will decrease to moderate with the addition
of the tower since the tower will be visible, but not substantially obtrusive to the
viewshed due to the increased distance of the sensitive receptor.
6-16
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
VIEW FROM THE EAST
The view from the east looking towards the project site does not have a high degree of
unity with the landscape due to the existing high voltage transmission towers in this
viewshed. The unity of the site with its surroundings is currently moderate-to-high;
however, with the addition of the proposed tower to the existing landscape, the view of
the site, in combination with the existing high voltage transmission towers, results in the
unity of the site to remain moderate. In addition, for those views from Rancho Murieta,
the tower will not be visually obtrusive and thus the unity will remain moderate-to-high.
SUMMARY
Based on the discussions above, the site is of moderate-to-high visual quality from all
views. Though unity and intactness are moderate-to-high, vividness is low-to-moderate.
Neither unity nor intactness alone creates an attractive visual landscape. If a viewshed
is highly unified and intact because it is not diverse, it creates a view that is
uninteresting. The highest quality views are those that are intact, unified and contain
sufficient visual diversity to make the site memorable. The project will decrease the
unity and intactness to moderate levels, but the site will become more vivid. The
vividness is not a positive impact, as it is making an encroachment more memorable.
For the one residence in close proximity to the project site, the visual quality of the site
will be reduced to moderate-to-low levels. Although this is a negative impact, the
impact is not considered a substantially adverse impact due to the very small viewer
group impacted. For residents at a greater distance to the south and east of the project
site, the addition of the proposed project will have a negative effect. Residents are
more sensitive to changes in their views. The visual quality of the site will be reduced to
moderate levels. Although this is a negative impact, the impact itself is not substantial
because of existing tower intrusions in the existing viewshed and because of the
relatively small viewer groups impacted. In addition, the residences of Rancho Murieta
will not be adversely affected by the proposed tower since the tower will not visually
obstruct the views of the landscape due to the distance of the project site from Rancho
Murieta and the ridge located between the project site and Rancho Murieta.
It is recognized that visual quality is intensely subjective, and as noted the few nearby
residents are likely to be more sensitive to any change, regardless of whether the
analysis concludes the impact is not significant. The environmental impact to visual
resources is considered less than significant.
IMPACT: CREATE A NEW SOURCE OF SUBSTANTIAL LIGHT OR GLARE
Because the tower will have an overall height greater than 200 feet above ground level,
the FAA requires that the tower be painted, marked and lit, pursuant to the FAA
Advisory Circular 70-7460-1K. Chapter 4 of this Advisory Circular outlines the various
obstruction lighting system used to indentify structures that an aeronautical study has
determined lighting is needed to increase visibility of the structure. Advisory Circular
150/5345-43 outlines the standards on the use of light units that meet specified
6-17
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
intensities, beam patterns, color, and flash rate. This chapter specifies that medium or
high intensity flashing white obstruction lights, if used during daytime and twilight with
automatically selected reduced intensity for nighttime operation on structures 500 feet
above ground level or less in height, other methods of marking and lighting the structure
may be omitted.
The applicant has indicated that the tower will be lit with high intensity white LED
strobes by day, low intensity white LED by night at the 250-foot and 500-foot elevations
on the tower. The applicant has indicated that this lighting meets the FAA requirements
for lighting of towers. Mitigation has been included that the applicant use the minimum
number of flashes per minute (longest duration between flashes) and minimum intensity
as allowed by the FAA to reduce the potential for bird strikes with the tower (refer to the
Biological Resources Chapter). The nearest residential structure is located 0.34 miles
to the north/northeast. Other residential lots are located to the south about a mile away.
At these distances, the lighting of the towers with the LED lights will not create
substantial light or glare that would adversely affect the day or nighttime views. At
night, the intensity of the light will be reduced; thus further reducing the potential for
substantial nighttime light that could adversely affect the nighttime views. Impacts are
IMPACT: CONFLICT WITH THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
In the Circulation Element of the Sacramento County General Plan, Latrobe Road
(located to the east of the site) is a County designated scenic corridor. Latrobe Road is
located just over a mile to the east. The applicant has submitted photo simulations of
the proposed project (refer to Plate VR -2 through Plate VR -5). The photo simulation
shown on Plate VR -2 is the view from the east, taken from Latrobe Road. As shown in
this photo simulation, the current view is of a high voltage transmission line. The
proposed tower would be located further away from this view than the transmission line
and would therefore not be a prominent feature. As previously discussed, the project
would be a transitory view for motorists; thus the project site would not have an adverse
affect to a County designated scenic corridor.
Plate VR -4 shows the view of the site, from approximately one mile south of the site,
along Jackson Highway (State Route 16). From Jackson Highway the tower will be
clearly visible above the trees. The smaller before and after pictures on the left side of
the graphic is a zoomed-in view of a power pole or cellular antenna. The proposed
tower will be within the same line of sight and will be about two and a half times taller
than the existing pole. As shown in the larger picture, the existing power pole is barely
seen above the trees and the proposed tower will be clearly visible to motorists on
Jackson Highway passing by the site.
Plate VR -3 shows the view from the west, from the intersection of Grant Line Road and
Kiefer Boulevard. As shown, the tower will be barely visible from this intersection. This
intersection is approximately 2.3 miles away from the site. At a closer distance, the
tower will be visible, as shown in the smaller pictures to the left in the graphic.
6-18
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate VR -5 shows the view from the north. This view is not from a highly traveled
roadway. The view is also from about 2.5 miles away. At this distance, the proposed
tower will not be clearly visible. Within this view, the Rancho Seco nuclear plants are
the only visible structures on the horizon.
Three of the photo simulations are from major roadways surrounding the project site.
These roadways are a substantial distance away from the site (greater than a mile) and
due to the distance the proposed tower will not be visually obtrusive. In addition, these
views are for only a short duration of time and does not visually distract from the
roadway.
Plate VR -7 is a picture taken of four (4) 399-foot tall radio towers located on the east
side of Grant Line Road, located between the intersections of Douglas Road/Grant Line
Road and Glory Lane/Grant Line Road. The towers are located just north of Glory Lane
and are set back from the roadway approximately 1,670 feet (0.3 mile). These towers
have a slightly smaller diameter (only by about 5 inches) and are only 100 feet shorter
in height compared to the proposed tower; however, there are four (4) towers at this
location, as opposed to the proposed project which will be one singular tower.
Plate VR -8 is a picture of the four towers, taken from the intersection of Douglas Road/
Americanos Boulevard, approximately one mile to the west. From this viewpoint, this
picture is a good representation of what the proposed project will look like. Just west of
this intersection, along Douglas Road are low density residential lots in the City of
Rancho Cordova. From this location, the site is well over 4.5 miles away and the
mound at Kiefer Landfill would block most of the visibility of the tower.
6-19
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate VR -7: Four (4) Existing 399 Feet Tall AM Radio Towers
Picture taken from intersection of Grant Line Road and Glory Lane. Towers are approximately
0.3 mile (1,670 feet) east/northeast from this intersection.
6-20
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate VR -8: View of Existing 399-Foot Tall AM Radio Towers at a Distance of One
Mile
The four radio towers appear as one tower from this angle.
6-21
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
In addition, the topography of the area is such that the tower may only be visible for
short duration of time or sporadically along the roadway. From Jackson Highway, there
are many trees that would help mask the tower from plain view. The equipment at the
base of the tower will not be visible by most since the site is located away from the
public roadway and the riparian vegetation of Deer Creek will screen the lower portions
of the tower. In addition, the lattice tower provides some transparency as opposed to a
solid pole. Furthermore, the ability to see the tower from the roadway is not necessarily
a negative adverse aesthetic impact; as noted before, the visual and aesthetic impact of
a project is generally subjective, as sensitivity to changes in the built environment varies
and individuals respond differently to these changes. The proposed tower will not
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site; impacts
are considered less than significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The project, in combination with other projects in the vicinity of the project site, would
not create a substantial adverse aesthetic impact. When the site and its surroundings
are viewed in conjunction with other towers in the area, the project will not visually
disrupt the existing viewshed. It is recognized that the degree of impact of a project,
either negatively or beneficial, to the visual character of the area is largely subjective as
sensitivity to change in the environment varies and individuals respond differently to
these changes. However, due to the relatively small footprint of the project on the site
and in the viewshed, the cumulative impacts, similar to the singular impacts of the
proposed project, are considered less than significant.
6-22
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the biological resources that occur within the project area,
identifies impacts to these resources and recommends mitigation measures to reduce
or eliminate significant impacts.
The applicant retained Sycamore Environmental Consultants, Inc. to perform an arborist
survey at the project site (report dated March 9, 2012). The arborist report is provided
as Appendix A.
The applicant retained ESTEP Environmental Consulting to conduct a Swainson’s hawk
survey at the project site (dated June 11, 2012) and the report is provided in Appendix
B. The reports were utilized in preparation of the analysis. Both reports are available
for review at the office of the Planning and Environmental Review Division, 827 7th
Street, Room 220, Sacramento, CA 95814 during normal business hours.
The project site is located in the rural agricultural area of the eastern part of the County.
The site is located in an area that was used for cattle operations/grazing, though the
site is currently not being used for grazing. The project site is located near Deer Creek
and a tributary to Deer Creek. Both the tributary and Deer Creek contain dense riparian
vegetation, consisting primarily of valley oak and Oregon ash in the project area. There
are no wetlands or vernal pools located near the project site. The tributary appears to
be an intermittent stream as it was noted to be dry during field visits by the arborist in
March 2012, and during a site visit in May 2012, staff (M. Nagao) of the Division of
Environmental Review and Assessment (DERA) observed that the channel was nearly
dry.
REGULATORY SETTING
SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan contains numerous goals, policies, concepts and strategies to protect
and/or preserve biological resources. The major goal outlined in the Conservation
Element of the General Plan is for the management and protection of natural resources
for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations, while maintaining the long-
7-1
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
7 - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
term ecological health and balance of the environment. The following polices of the
Conservation Element are applicable to the proposed project:
CO-58:
Ensure no net loss of wetlands, riparian woodlands, and oak woodlands.
CO-59:
Ensure mitigation occurs for any loss of or modification to the following
types of acreage and habitat function:
 Vernal pools;
 Wetlands;
 Riparian;
 Native vegetation habitat and;
 Special status species habitat
The objective of the Riparian Habitat section of the Conservation Element of the
General Plan is to manage riparian corridors to protect natural, recreational, economic,
agricultural and cultural resources as well as water quality, supply and conveyance.
The intent of this section is to protect, enhance and restore riparian habitat. The
applicable policies are:
CO-89:
Protect, enhance and maintain riparian habitat in Sacramento County.
CO-92:
Enhance and protect shaded riverine aquatic habitat along rivers and
streams.
The Conservation Element also provides policies for the protection, preservation and
enhancement of trees (native and non-native trees).
CO-138:
Protect and preserve non-oak native trees along riparian areas if used by
Swainson’s Hawk, as well as landmark and native oak trees measuring a
minimum of 6 inches in diameter or 10 inches aggregate for multi-trunk
trees at 4.5 feet above ground.
CO-140
For projects involving native oak woodlands, oak savannah or mixed
riparian areas, ensure mitigation through either of the following methods:
 An adopted habitat conservation plan.
 Ensure no net loss of canopy area through a combination of the
following: (1) preserving the main, central portions of
consolidated and isolated groves constituting the existing canopy
and (2) provide an area on-site to mitigate any canopy lost.
Native oak mitigation area must be a contiguous area on-site
which is equal to the size of canopy area lost and shall be
adjacent to existing oak canopy to ensure opportunities for
regeneration.
7-2
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
 Removal of native oaks shall be compensated with native oak
species with a minimum of one to one dbh replacement.
 A provision for a comparable on-site area for the propagation of
oak trees may substitute for replacement tree planting
requirements at the discretion of the County Tree Coordinator
when removal of a mature oak tree is necessary.
 If the project site is not capable of supporting all the required
replacement trees, a sum equivalent to the replacement cost of
the number of trees that cannot be accommodated may be paid
to the County’s Tree Preservation Fund or another appropriate
tree preservation fund.
 If on-site mitigation is not possible given site limitation, off-site
mitigation may be considered. Such a mitigation area must meet
all of the following criteria to preserve, enhance, and maintain a
natural woodland habitat in-perpetuity, preferably by transfer of
title to an appropriate public entity. Protected woodland habitat
could be used as a suitable site for replacement tree plantings
required by ordinances or other mitigations.
o Equal or greater in area to the total area that is included
within a radius of 30 feet of the dripline of all trees to be
removed;
o Adjacent to protected stream corridor or other preserved
natural areas;
o Supports a significant number of native broadleaf trees;
and
o Offers good potential for continued regeneration of an
integrated woodland community.
FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973, the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Commerce jointly have the authority to list a species as
endangered or threatened. FESA defines “endangered” species as any species in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A “threatened”
species is any species that is likely to become an “endangered” species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Additional specialstatus species include “candidate” species and “species of concern.” “Candidate”
species are those for which the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)has enough
information on file to propose listing as endangered or threatened. “Species of concern”
are those for which listing is possibly appropriate but for which USFWS lacks sufficient
7-3
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
information to support a listing proposal. A species that has been “delisted” is one
whose population has met its recovery goal target and is no longer in jeopardy of
extinction. Taking of federally listed species is prohibited under Section 9 of FESA. To
“take” is defined by FESA (Section 2[19]) to mean “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
would, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
All government agencies must review their actions and determine if a “may affect”
situation occurs with respect to a federally listed or proposed species. If the agency
makes a “may affect” determination, it is then required to formally consult with the
USFWS and/or with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries
(NOAA Fisheries).
For federal agencies, the consultation is conducted under Section 7 of FESA. The
agency submits a Biological Assessment to USFWS that evaluates the potential
adverse effects to federally listed species. USFWS then prepares a Biological Opinion
that addresses the requirements that must be followed to avoid, minimize, and
compensate for impacts to federally listed species and their habitats.
For non-federal agencies or individuals (i.e. private applicants), the consultation is
conducted under Section 10 of FESA. The agency or individual submits an incidental
take1 permit application to USFWS accompanied by a habitat conservation plan (HCP).
The purpose of the habitat conservation planning process associated with the permit is
to ensure there is adequate minimization and mitigation of the effects of the authorized
incidental take. The purpose of the permit is to authorize the incidental take of a listed
species, not to authorize the activities that result in take (USFWS 2005).
Further explanation is provided in the following notification, which was submitted to the
County by USFWS for inclusion2 into all environmental documents when threatened or
endangered species may be adversely affected:
As a requirement of the Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
following notification is provided to proponents of any Project that has the potential to
adversely affect threatened or endangered species:
“The applicant is hereby notified of additional conditions as stipulated by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Features of the applicant’s Project may adversely
affect federally listed threatened or endangered species. An applicant must go
through one of two processes to obtain authorization to take federally listed
species incidental to completing his or her Project. One of the processes is
formal consultation. When the authorization or funding of a Federal agency is an
Incidental take is take of listed fish or wildlife species that results from, but is not the purpose of, carrying
out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by a federal agency or applicant (50 CFR 402.2).
1
As a condition of the Fish and Wildlife Biological Opinion for the “Fazio Water” 101-514 water contract,
the County of Sacramento has agreed to include Fish and Wildlife notification language in Initial Studies
and EIRs when endangered and threatened species may be adversely affected.
2
7-4
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
aspect of a Project that may affect federally listed species, Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act requires the Federal agency to formally consult with the
Service.
Formal consultation is concluded when the Service issues a biological opinion to
the Federal agency. The biological opinion includes terms and conditions to
minimize the effect of take on listed species. The Federal agency must make the
terms and conditions of the biological opinion into binding conditions of its own
authorization to the Project applicant. An example of this process is when the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers consults with the Service prior to issuing a permit
to fill jurisdictional waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The terms
and conditions of the biological opinion become binding on the Project applicant
through the Corps’ 404 authorization. When no Federal funding or authorization
is involved in a Project, an applicant must prepare a habitat conservation plan
and obtain a permit directly from the Service in accordance with Section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. For additional information on these processes please
contact the Endangered Species Division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at (916) 414-6600”.
MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1916 established federal responsibilities for
the protection of nearly all species of birds, their eggs, and nests. Section 16 U.S.C
703-712 of the Act states, “unless and except as permitted by regulations, it shall be
unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill,
attempt to take, capture or kill” a migratory bird. A migratory bird is any species or
family of birds that live, reproduce, or migrate within or across international borders at
some point during their annual life cycle. Currently, there are 836 migratory birds
protected nationwide by the MBTA, of which 58 are legal to hunt.
CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (CESA)
The California Endangered Species Act (established in Fish and Game Code §2050)
generally parallels the main provisions of the FESA and is administered by the
California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) for most terrestrial species, with
assistance from the NOAA Fisheries (formerly known as the National Marine Fisheries
Services, or NMFS) for most freshwater fishery species. The CESA prohibits the taking
of state listed species except as otherwise provided by state law. Unlike the federal
ESA, the CESA extends the take prohibitions to not only listed species but also for
species petitioned for listing. “Take” is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game
Code as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture,
or kill." Section 2081 of the CESA identifies the following criteria that must be met for
Fish and Game to authorize the take of endangered, threatened or candidate species:

The taking of a listed or candidate species can be minimized and fully mitigated.

The take would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
7-5
PLNP2012-UPP-00035

Authorization for take must be based on the best scientific material that is
reasonably available, and that due consideration will be given to the species’
ability to survive and reproduce.
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE
ANIMALS AND PLANTS
Section 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs
of any bird, except as otherwise provided by the Fish and Game Code or any regulation
made pursuant thereto. Section 3503.5 make it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy
any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes or to take, possess, or destroy the
nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by the Fish and Game Code
or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Sections 1908, 3511, 4700, 5050 state that
Fully Protected plant and animals or parts thereof may not be taken or possessed at
any time.
The significance of an environmental impact cannot always be determined through use
of a specific quantifiable threshold. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) affirms this by
the statement: “An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because
the significance of an activity may vary with the setting.” Significance of an impact to
the biological resources discussed in this section rely on the policies, codes, and
regulations described for each species in the discussions which follow; the State CEQA
Guidelines; and professional standards. Impacts to biological resources were
considered significant if the project would:
1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification,
on any species identified as a special-status-species in local or regional
regulatory guidance, plans, policies, or regulations or by DFG or USFWS;
2. Have a substantial adverse effect on protected surface waters, as defined by the
Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 ed.) and/or as
defined by Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, seeps, vernal pools, swales, drainages, and perennial waterways)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
3. 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;
4. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; or
7-6
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
5. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural
community conservation plan, or approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
METHODOLOGY
The project site was reviewed (based on site visit and aerials) to determine whether any
protected habitats or vegetative communities were present on the site. Based on the
review of habitat, relevant special status species for analysis were identified based on
species information gathered from the USFWS Sacramento office and from DFG
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, 2011). The lists were based on species
present within the United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle for the
project site (Buffalo Creek) and adjacent quadrangles (Sloughhouse, Folsom SE and
Carbondale).
Based on the species list and available habitat at the project site, the only species of
concern that could be impacted by project construction activities include raptors,
Swainson’s hawk, and those that utilize the riparian corridor (i.e., fish and tricolored
blackbirds). As Deer Creek will not be impacted, there are no impacts to any listed fish
species. The tributary is an intermittent stream, thus it is not suitable habitat for fish
species. There are no wetlands or vernal pools located on the project site; therefore,
there is not suitable habitat for any listed invertebrates or plants common to wetland
habitats.
IMPACT: RIPARIAN HABITAT
A riparian habitat is simply defined as a distinct community of plants and animals found
in and alongside a stream or river. These communities can be up to a mile wide
adjacent to large rivers, or a narrow border along the banks of small creeks. The 2030
Sacramento County General Plan recognizes that riparian areas are an integral and
vital element of the County’s natural landscape. These communities provide a rich and
diverse habitat that serves as a permanent or seasonal home to a plethora of wildlife
species and provide open space and flood control. In 1993 in the Sacramento River
Valley only 25,000 of the estimated 500,000 acres of riparian habitat existing in 1850
remained. Recognizing the need to protect this valuable and dwindling habitat,
Sacramento County adopted policies to preserve and protect existing habitat while
encouraging the creation and/or restoration of riparian habitat when possible.
The applicant retained Sycamore Environmental Consultants, Inc. to perform an arborist
survey at the project site (Appendix A). Riparian habitat is located south of the project
site along Deer Creek and a tributary to Deer Creek. Sacramento County policy CO-58
7-7
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
calls for no net loss of riparian habitat and CO-59 requires that riparian habitat loss is
mitigated. Policy CO-140 provides various mitigation methods for impacts to mixed
riparian areas. The project will not result in the removal of any trees within the bed or
banks of the creek channel. The guy wires of the proposed tower will extend through
the riparian vegetation along the tributary and anchor in grasslands between the
tributary and Deer Creek. According to the applicant, two trees (Tree #70 and #74) will
be truncated about 25 feet in height and the remainder of the tree will remain within the
bank of the channel. Tree #70 is a multi-trunk Oregon ash (tree trunks have a diameter
at breast height (dbh) of 24, 40 and 22 inches) with a dripline radius of 15 feet and is
approximately 40 feet tall. Tree #74 is a valley oak (dbh of 23.5 inches) with a dripline
radius of 20 feet and is approximately 60 feet tall.
The removal of the tops of these two trees will result in a loss to riparian canopy
coverage. The canopy of riparian habitat is important for sustaining wildlife species.
Consistent with Policies CO-58 and CO-59 the applicant will be required to mitigate for
impacts to riparian habitat. CO-140 provides for canopy replacement by requiring onsite mitigation, equal to the size of canopy area lost. Based on the arborist report, the
dripline radius of tree #70 is 15 feet and the dripline radius of tree #74 is 20 feet. The
area of canopy can be determined finding the area of a circle (area of a circle = π r2) for
both trees. The canopy area is 1,962 square feet. This is equal to 0.05 acres.
Mitigation is therefore recommended that 1,962 square feet, or 0.05 acres of riparian
canopy be mitigated on-site. If all required mitigation plantings cannot be done on-site,
then the remaining plantings may be done somewhere along Deer Creek or along the
tributary within the vicinity of the project area. The applicant will be required to prepare
a revegetation plan for replacement of canopy. Canopy coverage is determined by
using the 15-year shade values for landscape trees
(http://www.dera.saccounty.net/Portals/0/docs/landscape%20tree%20list%202009.pdf).
Trees that thrive in moist soils are recommended. The shade values must equal 1,962
square feet.
Due to work construction activities through the riparian vegetation along the tributary,
riparian habitat protection mitigation measures have been included to preserve and
protect the trees in the tributary to ensure no adverse impacts to riparian habitat.
Implementation of mitigation measures BR-1 and BR-2 will reduce impacts to less than
significant.
BR-1
In order to compensate for the loss of 1,962 square feet of riparian canopy
(trees #70 and #74), mitigation through one of the following measures is
required prior to the issuance of a grading or other improvement permit or
building permit:
a. The applicant shall prepare an on-site re-vegetation plan for the loss of
canopy area, consistent with General Plan Policy CO-140. The revegetation plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist or botanist that
7-8
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
provides the species, number and location of plantings and provides for
quantifiable success criteria and include at least three years of monitoring
with an adaptive management program. Plantings may be done off-site
within the riparian area of Deer Creek or the tributary in order to ensure no
net loss (consistent with Policy CO-58 and CO-59). The plan shall be
subject to review and approval by the Environmental Coordinator.
b. A sum equivalent to the replacement cost of the number of trees that
cannot be accommodated on-site may be paid to the County’s Tree
Preservation Fund or another appropriate tree preservation fund such as
Sacramento Tree Foundation’s NATURE program.
c. Any mitigation required by the State or federal permitting agencies that
compensates for the loss of riparian vegetation, functions and values and
that provides for a native re-vegetation plan consistent with or exceeding
the requirements of this measure, shall be deemed sufficient mitigation to
reduce impacts to a less than significant level and may be utilized in place
of this measure.
BR-2
Riparian Habitat Construction Protection
For the purpose of this mitigation measure, riparian habitat is defined as any
tree located within or adjacent to the stream channel having a diameter at
breast height (dbh) of at least 6 inches, or if it has multiple trunks of less than 6
inches each, a combined dbh of at least 10 inches.
With the exception of the trees removed and compensated for through
Mitigation Measure BR-1, above, all riparian habitat on the project site shall be
preserved and protected as follows:
1. A circle with a radius measurement from the trunk of the tree to the tip
of its longest limb shall constitute the dripline protection area of the
tree. Limbs must not be cut back in order to change the dripline. The
area beneath the dripline is a critical portion of the root zone and
defines the minimum protected area of the tree. Removing limbs
which make up the dripline does not change the protected area.
2. Chain link fencing or a similar protective barrier shall be installed one
foot outside the driplines of the trees that make up the riparian habitat
prior to initiating project construction, in order to avoid damage to the
habitat and their root system.
3. No signs, ropes, cables (except cables which may be installed by a
certified arborist to provide limb support) or any other items shall be
attached to the riparian trees.
7-9
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
4. No vehicles, construction equipment, mobile home/office, supplies,
materials or facilities shall be driven, parked, stockpiled or located
within the driplines of the riparian trees.
5. Any soil disturbance (scraping, grading, trenching, and excavation) is
to be avoided within the driplines of the riparian trees. Where this is
necessary, an ISA Certified Arborist will provide specifications for this
work, including methods for root pruning and backfill specifications.
6. All underground utilities shall be routed outside the driplines of riparian
trees. Trenching within protected riparian tree driplines is not
permitted. If utility lines must encroach upon the dripline, they should
be tunneled or bored under the tree under the supervision of an ISA
Certified Arborist.
7. If temporary haul or access roads must pass within the driplines of
riparian trees, a roadbed of six inches of mulch or gravel shall be
created to protect the root zone. The roadbed shall be installed from
outside of the dripline and while the soil is in a dry condition, if
possible. The roadbed material shall be replenished as necessary to
maintain a six-inch depth.
8. Drainage patterns on the site shall not be modified so that water
collects or stands within, or is diverted across, the dripline of the
riparian trees.
9. No sprinkler or irrigation system shall be installed in such a manner
that it sprays water within the driplines of the riparian trees.
10. Tree pruning that may be required for clearance during construction
must be performed by an ISA Certified Arborist or Tree Worker and in
accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
A300 pruning standards and the International Society of Arboriculture
(ISA) “Tree Pruning Guidelines”.\
11. Landscaping beneath the riparian trees may include non-plant
materials such as boulders, decorative rock, wood chips, organic
mulch, non-compacted decomposed granite, etc. Landscape materials
shall be kept two (2) feet away from the base of the trunk. The only
plant species which shall be planted within the driplines of the riparian
trees are those which are tolerant of the natural semi-arid environs of
the trees. Limited drip irrigation approximately twice per summer is
recommended for the understory plants.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant
7-10
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
IMPACT: NESTING RAPTORS
The project site contains suitable nesting habits for nesting raptors. Raptors are defined
as members of the order Falconiformes (vultures, eagles, hawks, and falcons) and the
order Strigiformes (owls). Common species of raptors found locally include: red-tailed
hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), barn owl (Tyto alba), and great
horned owl (Bubo virginianus). The following raptors are listed as Californian State
Species of Special Concern: northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), osprey (Pandion
haliaetu), merlin (Falco columbarius), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), Cooper's
hawk (Accipiter cooperi), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), ferruginous hawk (Buteo
regalis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), golden eagle, and white-tailed
kite (Elanus leucurus) are classified as Fully Protected under California Fish and Game
Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515. Fully Protected species may not be taken
or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except
for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird
species for the protection of livestock.
Raptors and their active nests are protected by the California Fish and Game Code
Sections 3503.5, 3511, and 3513. The Code states the following: "It is unlawful to take,
possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey)
or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird." Because most
raptors migrate they are also protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918,
which states “unless and except as permitted by regulations, it shall be unlawful at any
time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to
take, capture, or kill” a migratory bird. Section 3(18) of the federal Endangered Species
Act defines the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Causing a bird to
abandon an active nest may cause harm to egg(s) or chick(s) and is therefore
considered “take.”
Since this project contains riparian trees that provide suitable nesting habitat for the
raptors, a preconstruction focused survey for raptor nests will be required if construction
activities occur between March 1 and September 15. For further discussion regarding
the Swainson’s hawk, refer to the Swainson’s hawk impact section below. Mitigation
has been included to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
BR-3
If ground disturbing activity (i.e. clearing, grubbing, or grading) is to occur
between March 1 and September 15, a survey for raptor nests shall be
conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey shall cover all potential tree and
ground nesting habitat on-site and off-site up to a distance of 500 feet from the
project boundary. The survey shall occur no longer than 14 days prior to the
start of construction work (including clearing, grubbing or grading). The
biologist shall supply a brief written report (including date, time of survey,
7-11
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
survey method, name of surveyor and survey results) to the Environmental
Coordinator prior to ground disturbing activity. If no active nests are found
during the survey, no further mitigation will be required. If an active nest(s) is
found, the Planning and Environmental Review Division and the California
Department of Fish and Game shall be contacted to determine appropriate
avoidance/protective measures.
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
IMPACT: SWAINSON’S HAWK
The Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is listed as a threatened species by the State
of California and is a candidate for federal listing as threatened or endangered. It is a
migratory raptor typically nesting in or near valley floor riparian habitats during spring
and summer months. In addition Swainson’s hawk is protected under the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which states “unless and except as permitted by
regulations, it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue,
hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill” a migratory bird. Section 3(18)
of the federal Endangered Species Act defines the term “take” means to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Causing a bird to abandon an active nest may cause harm to egg(s) or
chick(s) and is therefore considered “take.”
Swainson’s hawks were once common throughout the state, but various habitat
changes, including the loss of nesting habitat (trees) and the loss of foraging habitat
through the conversion of native Central Valley grasslands to certain incompatible
agricultural and urban uses has caused an estimated 90% decline in their population.
Swainson’s hawks feed primarily upon small mammals, birds, and insects. Their typical
foraging habitat includes native grasslands, alfalfa and other hay crops that provide
suitable habitat for small mammals. Certain other row crops and open habitats also
provide some foraging habitat. The availability of productive foraging habitat near a
Swainson’s hawk nest site is a critical requirement for nesting and fledgling success. In
central California, about 85% of Swainson’s hawk nests are within riparian forest or
remnant riparian trees.
The CEQA analysis provides a means by which to ascertain impacts to the Swainson’s
hawk, and consists of separate analyses of impacts to nesting habitat and foraging
habitat. When the analysis identifies impacts, mitigation measures are established that
may reduce impacts to the species to a less than significant level. Project proponents
are cautioned that the mitigation measures are designed to reduce impacts and do not
constitute an incidental take permit under the California Endangered Species Act
(CESA). Anyone who directly or incidentally takes a Swainson’s hawk, even when in
compliance with mitigation measures established pursuant to CEQA, may violate the
CESA.
7-12
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
PROJECT SITE SURVEY FOR SWAINSON’S HAWK
The applicant retained ESTEP Environmental Consulting to conduct a Swainson’s hawk
survey at the project site (Appendix B). Site visits were conducted on April 20 and June
8, 2012. The surveys consisted of walking the site and inspecting all trees capable of
supporting a Swainson’s hawk nest within approximately 0.25 miles of the tower site.
Observations of hawks and nest sites were made using binoculars and a spotting
scope.
The survey resulted in locating three active Swainson’s hawk nests. One nest is
located within approximately 200 feet of the proposed tower base along the unnamed
tributary to Deer Creek. The nest is in a willow tree.
The second and third nests are both located along Deer Creek. Nest number 2 is
located approximately 1,500 feet southwest of the tower site across Kiefer Boulevard.
Nest number 3 is located approximately 1,700 feet northeast of the project site. Both
nests occupy valley oak trees.
During the second survey (June 8, 2012), the consultant checked to see if the nests
were still active; all three nests were active at that time. The consultant stated that the
fledging of the young should occur by approximately late July to early August and adults
and young will begin fall migration by mid-to-late September.
NESTING HABITAT
For determining impacts to and establishing mitigation for nesting Swainson’s hawks in
Sacramento County, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) recommends
implementing the measures set forth in the CDFG Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for
Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California
(November 1, 1994). These state that no intensive new disturbances, such as heavy
equipment operation associated with construction, should be initiated within ¼ mile of
an active Swainson’s hawk nest in an urban setting or within ½ mile in a rural setting
between March 1 and September 15.
The survey conducted by ESTEP Environmental Consulting located three active
Swainson’s hawk nests within a ¼ mile of the project site. However, CDFG
recommends a survey radius of ½ mile in a rural setting. Mitigation requiring the ½ mile
radius pre-construction survey for Swainson’s hawk nests has been included below. If
construction activities will take place this year, prior to September 15, 2012, the
applicant shall contact CDFG to determine the appropriate protective measures for the
three identified active Swainson’s hawk nests. If construction of the project is stalled
and construction does not commence until March 1 through September 15 in future
years, the applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure BR-3 below. Upon compliance,
impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawks will be considered less than significant.
7-13
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
BR-4
If construction, grading, or project-related improvements are to occur between
March 1 and September 15, a focused survey for Swainson’s hawk nests on
the site and on nearby trees shall take place within ½ mile of the project site
and shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 14 days prior to the start
of construction work (including clearing and grubbing). If active nests are
found, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall be contacted
to determine appropriate protective measures. If no active nests are found
during the focused survey, no further mitigation will be required.
SWAINSON’S HAWK FORAGING HABITAT
Statewide, CDFG recommends implementing the measures set forth in the CDFG Staff
Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the
Central Valley of California (November 1, 1994) for determining impacts to Swainson’s
hawk foraging habitat unless local jurisdictions develop an individualized methodology
designed specifically for their location. Sacramento County has developed such a
methodology and received confirmation from CDFG in March of 2006 that the
methodology is a better fit for unincorporated Sacramento County and should replace
the statewide, generalized methodology for determining impacts to foraging habitat.
Swainson’s hawks are known to forage up to 18 miles from their nest site; however, that
is the extreme range of one individual bird’s daily movement. It is more common for a
Swainson’s hawk to forage within 10 miles of its nest site. Therefore it is generally
accepted and CDFG recommends evaluating projects for foraging habitat impacts when
they are within 10 miles of a known nest site.
Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat value is greater in large expansive open space and
agricultural areas than in areas which have been fragmented by agricultural-residential
or urban development. The new methodology for unincorporated Sacramento County is
based on the concept that impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat occur as
properties develop to increasingly more intensive uses on smaller minimum parcel
sizes. Therefore, the methodology relies mainly on the minimum parcel size allowed by
zoning to determine habitat value. For the purpose of the methodology, properties with
zoning of AG-40 and larger maintain 100% of their foraging habitat value and properties
with AR-5 zoning and smaller have lost all foraging habitat value. The table below
illustrates the continuum between AG-40 and AR-5 that represents the partial loss of
habitat value that occurs with fragmentation of large agricultural land holdings. The
large, 50% loss of habitat value between AG-20 and AR-10 is due to the change in land
use from general agriculture to agricultural-residential.
7-14
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Table BR-1: Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat Value by Zoning Category
Zoning Category
Habitat Value Remaining
AG-40 and above (e.g., AG-80, 160 etc.)
100%
AG-20
75%
AR-10
25%
AR-5 and smaller (e.g., AR-2, 1 or RD-5, 7, 10, 15, 20 etc.)
0%
The project site is zoned AG-80, which provides for 100% Swainson’s hawk foraging
habitat. The proposed project does not result in a change in the zoning; therefore, there
would not be a loss to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. In addition, the footprint of the
project (total disturbed area is 0.78 acres, total project area is 1.6 acres) is small and
does not adversely affect Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. Impacts to Swainson’s
hawk foraging habitat is considered less than significant.
IMPACT: COMMUNICATION TOWER BIRD STRIKES
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
(http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/communicationtowers.html), the loss of
migratory birds at communication towers is estimated at 4-5 million annually. Potentially
impacted resources include 90 bird species which are threatened or endangered and
124 non-game species of management concern. Lighted guy-wired towers taller than
199 feet above ground level are particularly hazardous to migratory birds, especially
night migrating song birds. While lighting for towers taller than 199 feet above ground
level is required by the Federal Aviation Administration to avoid aircraft accidents,
certain types of lighting may attract birds to the towers.
On September 14, 2000 the Director of the USFWS sent a letter to the USFWS
Regional Directors which provided guidance on siting, construction, operation and
decommissioning of communication towers. This letter (cited as USFWS 2000) and the
included guidelines are provided in Appendix C and are also available at the following
USFWS website: http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/com_tow_guidelines.pdf
The available scientific literature regarding bird strikes with communications towers has
been reviewed and is summarized as follows:

There are published reports of birds being killed in the thousands per night per
tower by striking towers and guy wires. These reports are mainly from the
eastern United States.

The most common kills happen with night-migrating passerine (song birds) and
neo-tropical species.
7-15
PLNP2012-UPP-00035

Inclement weather is associated with the reported bird kills.

Many of the towers with reported bird kills approach 1,000 feet or taller in height.

Tower lighting may attract birds and interfere with their internal compass.

Birds are more sensitive to red lighting. White lighting seems to be less
attractive/confusing to birds.

Flashing lights with the longest possible off-phase seem to attract/confuse birds
less than lights with a shorter off-phase.

Physical location in flyways, near major wetland preserves and/or along
ridgelines can lead to increased mortality.
A multitude of factors need to be considered in determining if the proposed tower will
have a significant impact on any protected species. These factors include the species
present in the area, the tower lighting, number of guy wires, tower height, geographic
location and surrounding land use. The applicant has indicated that the lighting of the
tower will be to FAA specifications and will be white LED lights. As stated above, white
lighting is preferable over red for avoiding bird strikes.
The western United States does not have the same species and numbers of birds that
night migrate as the eastern United States (the guidelines were developed by Service
personnel from research conducted in several eastern, Midwestern and southern States
and refined through Regional review). Although the west coast has the Pacific Flyway,
the project site is located to the east side of the Sacramento Valley close to the Sierra
Nevada foothills and would therefore not affect the flyway to the same degree as a
tower located in the Central Valley.
There are no large wetland preserves or major wildlife preserves in the immediate
vicinity of the project site. However, the project is located near Deer Creek which drains
to the Cosumnes River; both have riparian forest that provides raptor nesting habitat. In
this area, the bird of primary concern is the Swainson’s hawk, which as described
above, is listed as threatened by the state and nests in the immediate vicinity of the
project. Raptors are not prone to the same mass killings as happens with flocking, night
migrating birds. However, they are known to collide with power lines and guy wires
causing fatality. There is some discussion in the literature that raptors may strike guy
wires when in pursuit of prey and they are focused on prey not the wires in front of (or
below) them. This theory has only limited research and no conclusions can be made at
this time. However, the USFWS recommends (USFWS 2000) that tower designs using
guy wires for support which are located in areas of known raptor concentration, should
have daytime visual markers on the wires to prevent collisions by diurnally active
species. As noted above, the area has a high concentration of Swainson’s hawk nests
and therefore mitigation has been added requiring a method of guy wire
identification/marking in order to help prevent raptor collisions.
7-16
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
The USFWS also recommends that towers taller than 199 feet above ground level that
requires lighting for aviation safety, the minimum amount of pilot warning and
obstruction avoidance lighting as required by FAA should be used. Unless otherwise
required by the FAA, only white (preferable) or red strobe lights should be used at night
and these should be the minimum number, minimum intensity and minimum number of
flashes per minute (longest duration between flashes) allowable by the FAA. The use of
solid red or pulsating red warning lights at night should be avoided. Current research
indicates that solid or pulsating red lights (beacon lights) attract night migrating birds at
a much higher rate than white strobe lights. The applicant has indicated that there will
be two locations along the tower that will be lit (the 250-foot elevation and 500-foot
elevation) with LED white lights. The project will be conditioned to use white strobe
lights with the least intensity and longest duration between flashes as allowed by FAA.
The lack of rigorous study of bird strike issues in the western United States can make it
difficult to quantify raptor mortality from bird strikes. The USFWS recommends
(USFWS 2000) that researchers and agency personnel be allowed access to sites to
evaluate bird use, conduct dead bird searches and for other purposes related to
researching the bird strike issue. Access should be allowed at the site for the purpose
of research on bird strike issues.
Upon compliance with the recommended mitigation below, impacts related to bird
strikes will be reduced to less than significant.
BR-5
In order to reduce the potential of daytime bird strikes, the guy wires supporting
the towers shall be marked with an industry accepted visual marker designed
to prevent collisions by diurnally active bird species (for guidance on markers,
see Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating Bird
Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electric
Institute, Washington, D.C. 78 pp, and Avian Power Line Interaction Committee
(APLIC). 1996 Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines.
Edison Electric Institute/ Raptor Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. 128
pp. Copies can be obtained by calling 1-800-334-5453).
BR-6
The tower shall be lit consistent with the FAA Air Circular 70/7461-1K but shall
use white light (instead of red), use the minimum number of lights, with
minimum intensity and minimum number of flashes per minute (longest
duration between flashes) as allowed by the FAA to reduce bird collisions due
to attraction/confusion.
IMPACT: TRICOLORED BLACKBIRDS
Tricolored blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor) are a species of special concern and tricolored
blackbirds are known to nest near wetlands and streams in large (several hundred to
7-17
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
several thousand birds) breeding colonies in habitats made up of large thickets of
blackberry, bulrushes, or cattails. The CNDDB lists a known occurrence of a tricolored
blackbird colony over 1,000 feet to the southwest of the project site. There is a
blackberry thicket located over 750 feet north of the project site. Construction
associated with the project is not expected to impact the tricolored blackbird. Impacts
to tricolored blackbirds are considered less than significant.
IMPACT: WATERS OF THE U.S.
Deer Creek is located near the project impact area and a tributary to Deer Creek is
located within the project impact area. The guy wires will have to span across this
tributary to an anchor point on grasslands located between the tributary and Deer
Creek. The applicant has indicated that a tractor will be needed during construction and
will need to cross the tributary to access the anchor point. The proposed crossing is at
a location where the banks are not steep, the vegetation is not dense and the tributary
is generally dry during the summer months. The applicant will place a metal sheet as a
temporary bridge across the channel to prevent impacts to the channel bed and bank
during construction. Deer Creek will not be impacted during construction of the project.
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is responsible for conserving,
protecting and managing California’s fish, wildlife and native plant resources. Under
Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, an entity must notify CDFG of any proposed
activity that may substantially modify a river, stream, or lake. Section 1602 applies to all
perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams and lakes in the state. After a
complete notification package is submitted to CDFG, CDFG will determine is a Lake or
Streambed Alteration Agreement is required for the activity. An agreement is required if
the activity could substantially adversely affect an existing fish and wildlife resource.
The applicant has modified construction of the project to not remove any trees from the
tributary. The two trees are growing within the banks of the tributary and provide habitat
along the stream channel. The applicant has indicated that project construction will
include truncating the trees (around the height of 25 feet) so that the guy wires may
pass through the canopy and leaving the remainder of the tree within the banks of the
channel. This will be done so that the tree will not pose a hazard to the guy wires and
ultimately the stability of the radio tower.
It is not expected that there would be any adverse impacts to the tributary. It is
recommended that the applicant contact CDFG to determine if a permit is necessary for
the loss of 1,962 square feet of riparian canopy. Impacts to waters of the U.S. are
The loss of riparian habitat along the tributary to Deer Creek as a result of the project is
not significant after mitigation, and when considered with other projects in the area,
there is not a substantial loss to riparian habitats. The potential impacts to nesting
7-18
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
raptors and Swainson’s hawk during construction is also not a significant impact after
mitigation. This impact is not compounded when other projects are considered and
therefore, there is not an adverse cumulative impact to raptors. The potential for bird
strikes and the radio tower/guy wires is reduced to less than significant on a project
level basis with implementation of the recommended mitigation. The mortality rates of
birds due to tower collisions is a relatively small percentage and the addition of this
radio tower to the area where there are already seven existing guyed radio towers
(seven towers among two locations) does not result in a significant increase in bird
mortality due tower strikes; therefore, there is not a considerable cumulatively adverse
impact to bird mortality and tower strikes. The project would not have a cumulative
considerable impact to biological resources; the cumulative impacts are considered less
than significant.
7-19
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
8 CULTURAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the regulatory and environmental settings for cultural resources
in the project area and vicinity of the project site, identifies and analyzes the impacts
related to cultural resources from implementation of the project as proposed, and, if
necessary, recommends mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate significant impacts.
CULTURAL RESOURCES BACKGROUND
Under CEQA, lead agencies must consider the effects of their projects on historical
resources. This chapter describes the potential impacts to cultural resources that could
occur as a result of implementation of the proposed KXPR Radio Tower project.
Cultural resources may include historic buildings and structures, historic districts,
historic sites, culturally sacred or significant sites, prehistoric and historic archaeological
sites, and other prehistoric and historic objects and artifacts.
Overall, cultural resources that are known to exist and those that may be present on the
Project site include the categories described in Table CR-1, identified pursuant to
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 4852.
Table CR-1: Categories of Cultural Resources
Category
Description
Building
Structures created principally to shelter
or assist in carrying out any form of
human activity. May also refer to a
historically and functionally related unit
(e.g., courthouse and jail).
Houses, barns, churches,
factories, and hotels
Site
A site is the location of a significant
event, a prehistoric or historic occupation
or activity, or a building or structure,
whether standing, ruined, or vanished,
where the location itself possesses
historical, cultural, or archeological value
regardless of the value of any existing
building, structure, or object. A site need
not be marked by physical remains if it is
the location of a prehistoric event, and if
no buildings, structures, or objects
marked it at that time.
Trails, designed landscapes,
battlefields, habitation sites,
Native American ceremonial
areas, petroglyphs, and
pictographs
8-1
Example
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
8 - Cultural Resources
Structure
The term "structure" is used to describe a
construction made for a functional
purpose rather than creating human
shelter.
Mines, bridges, and tunnels
Object
The term "object" is used to describe
those constructions that are primarily
artistic in nature or are relatively small in
scale and simply constructed, as
opposed to a building or a structure.
Although it may be moveable by nature
or design, an object is associated with a
specific setting or environment. Objects
should be in a setting appropriate to their
significant historic use, role, or character.
Objects that are relocated to a museum
are not eligible for listing in the California
Register.
Fountains, monuments,
maritime resources, sculptures,
and boundary markers
Historic District
Unified geographic entities which contain
a concentration of historic buildings,
structures, objects, or sites united
historically, culturally, or architecturally.
Historic districts are defined by precise
geographic boundaries. Therefore,
districts with unusual boundaries require
a description of what lies immediately
outside the area, in order to define the
edge of the district and to explain the
exclusion of adjoining areas.
---
The following analysis provides an overview of known cultural resources within the
Project site and identifies any potential adverse impacts to them associated with the
Project. Potential unknown resources are also addressed. The analysis also
recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts to cultural resources within the
Project site.
The Department of Community Development, Planning and Environmental Review
Division retained PAR Environmental Services, Inc (PAR), to conduct a cultural
resources inventory for the proposed Project (A Systematic Archaeological Survey of
the KXPR Radio Tower Use Permit, June 2012). The following chapter is based on and
contains portions of the inventory.
8-2
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
CULTURAL RESOURCES SETTING
PREHISTORY
Moratto (1984) indicated Central California prehistory developed for approximately the
last 5,000 years. The earliest well-defined archaeological pattern is the Windmiller
Pattern, which is identified from components dated to between 4,000 and 5,000 BP.
Moratto suggests that Windmiller people may have moved seasonally between the
Valley and the Sierra Nevada foothills (Moratto 1984). Windmiller assemblages typically
contain numerous materials that derive from the Sierra metamorphic deposits including
schist, quartz crystals and metachert. Obsidian is generally of trans-Sierran origin, while
beads and ornaments of marine shell indicate connections with the coast (Moratto
1984).
The Windmiller pattern is succeeded by the Meganos Aspect and Berkeley Pattern.
Bennyhoff suggests that the Meganos was an aspect of the Windmiller Pattern in the
lower San Joaquin Valley, while other investigators have considered it an aspect of the
Berkeley Pattern of the San Francisco Bay region. Moratto infers that the transition
from Windmiller to Berkeley Pattern may have been a lingering process, possibly
protracted for as much as a thousand years (Moratto 1984). Bennyhoff and Hughes
(1987) provide an alternative view of problems determining the end of the Windmiller,
suggesting that the Windmiller lasted as late as 2,500 BP and the Berkeley - Augustine
transition was as late as 1,300 to 1,000 years BP. Berkeley Pattern components in the
lower Sacramento Valley are noted for abundant bone artifacts, flexed to tightly flexed
interments, mortar and pestle as the dominant milling equipment and obsidian artifacts
that frequently derive from the Napa obsidian source in the North Coast Range.
The final archaeological pattern is called Augustine, which marks the emergence of the
identifiable record of the ethnographic population of California. The Augustine Pattern
has been traditionally considered to extend from 1,500 BP to the time of historic contact
with the final phase of the Augustine representing the period immediately after historic
contact. Recent work such as that of Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987) suggests that the
inception of Phase I of Augustine may not have occurred until possibly as late 1,100 to
1,000 BP. Augustine Pattern components are distinguished by the introduction of the
bow and arrow, the appearance of shell bead money, the acorn and fishing as important
subsistence staples, tightly flexed interments without discernible orientation
preferences, and evidence of complex ceremonial activities including specialized
structures for ritual purposes. Structures in lower Sacramento Valley settlements were
semisubterranean, round houses with earth covered superstructures and may have
served multiple families. Villages are often large and there is evidence that some may
have been permanently occupied by sedentary or semi-sedentary populations
(Bennyhoff 1994).
8-3
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
ETHNOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
Ethnography is the written record of a culture. Archaeology can be combined with
ethnography to identify groups more specifically. Ethnographic records (from missions
and other documents) show that the groups that inhabited Sacramento County are the
Nisenan, or Southern Maidu, and the Plains Miwok, a subgroup of the Eastern Miwok.
The Plains Miwok traditional territory included the lower reaches of the Cosumnes and
Mokelumne Rivers and extended west to the Sacramento River from Rio Vista north to
Freeport (Levy 1978). Ethnographers generally agree that Nisenan territory included
the drainages of the Bear, American, Yuba, and southern Feather Rivers and extended
from the Sacramento River east to the crest of the Sierra Nevada (Beals 1933, Faye
1923, Gifford 1927, Kroeber 1925, Powers 1976, Wilson and Towne 1978). Thus, the
proposed Project is located within the territory commonly attributed to the ethnographic
Nisenan.
NISENAN
As shown, ethnographically, the Project area is in the southwestern portion of the
territory occupied by the Penutian-speaking Nisenan. As a language, Nisenan
(meaning “from among us” or “of our side”) has three main dialects – Northern Hill,
Southern Hill, and Valley Nisenan, with three or four subdialects (Kroeber 1976, Shipley
1978, Wilson and Towne, 1978). The Valley Nisenan lived along the Sacramento River,
primarily in large villages with populations of several hundred each. Between there and
the foothills, the grassy plains were largely unsettled, used mainly as a foraging ground
by both valley and hill groups. Individual and extended families “owned” hunting and
gathering grounds, and trespassing was discouraged (Kroeber 1976, Wilson and Towne
1978). Residence was generally patrilocal, but couples actually had a choice in the
matter (Wilson and Towne 1978).
Politically, the Nisenan were divided into “triblets”, made up of a primary village and a
series of outlying hamlets, presided over by a more-or-less hereditary chief (Kroeber
1976, Wilson and Towne 1978). Villages typically included family dwellings, acorn
granaries, a sweathouse, and a dance house, owned by the chief. The chief had little
authority to act on his own or her own, but with the support of the shaman and the
elders, the word of the chief became virtually the law (Wilson and Towne 1978).
Subsistence activities centered on the gathering of acorns (tan bark oak and black oak
were preferred), seeds, and other plant resources, the hunting of animals such as deer
and rabbits, and fishing. Large predators, such as mountain lions and wildcats were
hunted for their meat and skins, and bears were hunted ceremonially. Although acorns
were the staple of the Nisenan diet, they also harvested roots like wild onion and “Indian
potato”, which were eaten raw, steamed, baked, or dried and processed into flour cakes
to be stored for winter use (Wilson and Towne 1978). Wild garlic was used as
soap/shampoo, and wild carrots were used medicinally (Littlejohn 1928). Seeds from
grasses were parched, steam dried, or ground and made into a mush. Berries were
collected, as were other native fruits and nuts. Game was prepared by roasting, baking,
8-4
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
or drying. In addition, salt was obtained from a spring near modern-day Rocklin (Wilson
and Towne 1978).
Hunting of deer often took the form of communal drives, involving several villages, with
killing done by the best marksmen from each village. Snares, deadfalls, and decoys
were used as well. Fish were caught by a variety of methods including use of hooks,
harpoons, nets, weirs, traps, poisoning, and by hand (Wilson and Towne 1978).
Trade was important with goods traveling from the coast and valleys up into the Sierra
Nevada mountains and beyond to the east, and vice versa. Coastal items like shell
beads, salmon, salt, and foothills pine nuts were traded for resources from the
mountains and farther inland, such as bows and arrows, deer skins, and sugar pine
nuts. In addition, obsidian was imported from the north (Wilson and Towne 1978).
The Spanish arrived on the central California coast in 1769 and by 1776 the Miwok
territory bordering the Nisenan on the south had been explored by Jose Canizares. In
1808, Gabriel Moraga crossed Nisenan territory, and in 1813, a major battle was fought
between the Miwok and the Spaniards near the mouth of the Cosumnes River. Though
the Nisenan appear to have escaped being removed to missions by the Spanish, they
were not spared the ravages of European diseases. In 1833, an epidemic – probably
malaria – raged through the Sacramento valley, killing an estimated 75 percent of the
native population. When John Sutter erected his fort at the future site of Sacramento in
1839, he had no problem getting the few Nisenan survivors to settle nearby. The
discovery of gold in 1848 at Sutter’s Mill, near the Nisenan village of Colluma (now
Coloma) on the south fork of the American River, drew thousands of miners to the area,
and led to widespread killing and the virtual destruction of traditional Nisenan culture.
By the Great Depression, no Nisenan remained who could remember the days before
the arrival of the Euro-Americans (Wilson and Towne 1978).
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The KXPR Radio Tower project lies within a Mexican land grant awarded to John
Chamberland in 1844. In 1850, Chamberland sold 703 acres of the land (including the
project area) to Emanuel Pratt, a merchant with a store on the Cosumnes River. Pratt
operated his store until 1855 and continued to live there, defending his claim to the land
grant property before the federal government in 1866 (Brewsley and Pratt 1866;
Thomson and West 1880:215).
By the 1860s, mining in the general vicinity of the project gave way to farming and
ranching and the large parcels of the original land grant were gradually divided and sold
into smaller parcels. Agricultural pursuits along the Cosumnes River ranged from cattle
and sheep ranching to orchards and hop farming. Sloughhouse remained a small
commercial stop into the early twentieth century. The larger parcels north of the
waterways were planted in hay and grain and also used for pasture for livestock during
the winter and spring. Parcel lines in this region are uncharacteristically long and
narrow, rather than the rectangular or square parcels more commonly seen with large
ranch properties. This is to give each of the parcels access to the waterways in the
8-5
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
area, most notably the Cosumnes River and Deer Creek. There are two building
complexes within the KXPR Radio Tower project that occur on separate parcels. The
southwestern complex that is closer to Kiefer Boulevard is located on a parcel that was
settled by Cath F. Dalton in the 1800s. The Dalton property, a 380-acre ranch, was
owned by the family well into the twentieth century. Cath Dalton had three generations
on the land at one time. His son, Edward F. Dalton was born on the family ranch and
grandson Donald Coy Dalton followed in 1897. By 1923, a Sacramento County History
described Edward as, “a very successful farmer and orchardist owning large holdings in
the Cosumnes river near Slough House” (Reed 1923:788). By that time, Donald was
living on the ranch and overseeing the family’s orchards, primarily plums and peaches
(Reed 1923:793).
The large complex at the edge of the Project area, north (but within one-half mile) of the
physical project footprint, is the historic ranch of S. B. Moore, located in Lee Township
(Plate CR-1). Moore purchased this property before 1870, establishing a sheep ranch.
Moore and his wife, Ellen, made their home there and established a prosperous
operation. By 1875, they owned 917 acres stretching northwest from Deer Creek.
Their operation included 600 sheep, 40 hogs, horses and colts, wagons and a mule.
That year they were also assessed for 10 tons of hay, which they harvested on their
land. In addition to their home and ranch buildings, Moore also held $2,000 in secured
debts (mortgages) and a note, indicating he was sufficiently well-off to loan money to
others. Their ranch is illustrated in Thompson and West’s 1880 history of Sacramento
County (Plate CR-1). The drawing depicts a lively ranch with a large hay wagon,
numerous outbuildings and two one-story dwellings. Moore was also active in the
community and served on Sacramento County’s Board of Supervisors during the 1870s
(Sacramento County Tax Assessor’s Roll 1875; Thompson and West 1880:133).
S. B. Moore died in 1905, leaving his estate to his wife, Ellen. Ellen continued to live on
the ranch, although she leased it to W.R. Grimshaw to operate. She sold other land
and held mortgages owing her nearly $75,000, a considerable sum at that time. She
died in 1910 at the age of 71. The family’s prosperity was noteworthy and the
Sacramento Union wrote an article headlined “Sacramento woman leaves $90,000
Estate” at the time of her death. The following year, the ranch property was sold at
public auction, with Arnold Saner putting in the winning bid of $22,550 (Sacramento
County 1911 [probate for Ellen Moore]; Sacramento Union, August 16, 1910). Saner
established a dairy and cheese factory on the property (Reed 1923). Today, the land is
still used primarily for ranching.
8-6
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate CR-1: S.B. Moore Ranch Lithograph, ca 1880
8-7
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
CULTURAL RESOURCES REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Cultural resources are considered during federal undertakings chiefly under Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) through one of
its implementing regulations, 36 CFR 800 (Protection of Historic Properties), as well as
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Properties of traditional religious and
cultural importance to Native Americans are considered under Section 101(d)(6)(A) of
NHPA. Other federal laws pertinent to cultural resources include the Archaeological
Data Preservation Act of 1974, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of
1978, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979, the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1989, among others.
Below is a more detailed description of applicable federal regulations.
ANTIQUITIES ACT
The federal Antiquities Act of 1906 was created with the intent to protect cultural
resources in the United States. The Act prohibits appropriation, excavation, injury, and
destruction of “any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity”
located on lands owned or controlled by the federal government, without permission of
the secretary of the federal department with jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Act provided
early framework to protect cultural resources within the United States.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
NEPA requires that federal agencies assess whether federal actions would result in
significant effects on the human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality’s
(CEQ’s) NEPA regulations further stipulate that identification of significant effects should
incorporate “the degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites,
highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register for
Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or
historic resources” (40 CFR 1508.27[b][8]).
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
Section 106 of NHPA (16 USC 470f) requires federal agencies to take into account the
effects of their undertakings on any district, site, building, structure or object that is
included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and to afford the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings (36 CFR 800.1). Under Section 106, the significance of any adversely
affected cultural resource is assessed and mitigation measures are proposed to reduce
any impacts to an acceptable level. Significant cultural resources are those resources
8-8
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
that are listed, or are eligible for listing, on the NRHP per the criteria listed at 36 CFR
60.4 (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 2000) below.
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering
and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess
integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association
and that:
a. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history; or
b. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
c. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high
artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components may lack individual distinction; or
d. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory
or history.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA requires a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant
effect on historical resources. If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause
damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable
efforts to be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left
in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation
measures are required (Section 21083.2 (a), (b), and (c)). Section 21083.2(g)
describes a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site
about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions
and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
(2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the
best available example of its type.
(3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or
historic event or person.
A historical resource is a resource listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Section 21084.1); a resource
included in a local register of historical resources (Section 15064.5(a)(2)); or any object,
8-9
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency
determines to be historically significant (Section 15064.5 (a)(3)). Sacramento County
does not currently have a local register.
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1, Section 15064.5 of the Guidelines, and
Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the Statutes of CEQA were used as the basic
guidelines for the cultural resources study. PRC Section 5024.1 requires evaluation of
historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing on the CRHR. The purpose of
the register is to maintain listings of the State's historical resources and to indicate
which properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change. The criteria for
listing resources on the California Register were expressly developed to be in
accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
NATIVE AMERICAN BURIALS AND ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERIES
California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains and associated grave
goods regardless of their antiquity and provides for the sensitive treatment and
disposition of those remains (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Public
Resources Code 5097.9).
When human remains are discovered, the protocol to be followed is specified in
California Health and Safety Code, which states:
In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location
other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are
discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with
Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the
remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27492 of the Government
Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the
circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations
concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to
the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized
representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public
Resources Code.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, subdivision (e), requires that excavation
activities be stopped whenever human remains are uncovered and that the county
coroner be called in to assess the remains. If the county coroner determines that the
remains are those of Native Americans, the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) must be contacted within 24 hours. At that time, the lead agency must consult
with the appropriate Native Americans, if any, as timely identified by the NAHC. Section
15064.5 directs the lead agency (or applicant), under certain circumstances, to develop
an agreement with the Native Americans for the treatment and disposition of the
remains.
8-10
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
In addition to the mitigation provisions pertaining to accidental discovery of human
remains, the State CEQA Guidelines also require that a lead agency make provisions
for the accidental discovery of historical or archaeological resources, generally.
Pursuant to Section 15064.5, subdivision (f), these provisions should include “an
immediate evaluation of the find by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to
be an historical or unique archaeological resource, contingency funding and a time
allotment sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate
mitigation should be available. Work could continue on other parts of the building site
while historical or unique archaeological resource mitigation takes place.”
LOCAL REGULATIONS
2030 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
The Sacramento County General Plan Conservation Element, states under Section VI,
Cultural Resources, the following goal and six objectives:
Promote the inventory, protection and interpretation of the cultural heritage of
Sacramento County, including historical and archaeological settings, sites, buildings,
features, artifacts and/or areas of ethnic historical, religious or socio-economical
importance.
1. Comprehensive knowledge of archeological and historic site locations.
2. Attention and care during project review and construction to ensure that cultural
resource sites, either previously known or discovered on the project site, are
properly protected with sensitivity to Native American values.
3. Structures with architectural or historical importance preserved to maintain
contributing design elements.
4. Known cultural resources protected from vandalism unauthorized excavation, or
accidental destruction.
5. Properly stored and classified artifacts for ongoing study.
6. Public awareness and appreciation of both visible and intangible historic and
cultural resources.
To implement the primary goal and the objectives, the Conservation Element contains
the following policies:
CO-150. Utilize local, state and national resources, such as the NCIC, to assist in
determining the need for a cultural resources survey during project review.
CO-151. Projects involving an adoption or amendment of a General Plan or Specific
Plan or the designation of open space shall be noticed to all appropriate Native
8-11
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
American tribes in order to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural
places.
CO-153. Refer projects with identified archeological and cultural resources to the
Cultural Resources Committee to determine significance of resource and
recommend appropriate means of protection and mitigation. The Committee
shall coordinate with the Native American Heritage Commission in developing
recommendations.
CO-154. Protection of significant prehistoric, ethnohistoric and historic sites within open
space easements to ensure that these resources are preserved in situ for
perpetuity.
CO-155. Native American burial sites encountered during preapproved survey or during
construction shall, whenever possible, remain in situ. Excavation and reburial
shall occur when in situ preservation is not possible or when the archeological
significance of the site merits excavation and recording procedure. On-site
reinterment shall have priority. The project developer shall provide the burden
of proof that off site reinterment is the only feasible alternative. Reinterment
shall be the responsibility of local tribal representatives.
CO-157. Monitor projects during construction to ensure crews follow proper reporting,
safeguards, and procedures.
CO-158. As a condition of approval of discretionary permits, a procedure shall be
included to cover the potential discovery of archaeological resources during
development or construction.
CO-159. Request a Native American Statement as part of the environmental review
process on development projects with identified cultural resources.
CO-161. As a condition of approval for discretionary projects, require appropriate
mitigation to reduce potential impacts where development could adversely
affect paleontological resources.
CO-162. Projects located within areas known to be sensitive for paleontological
resources, should be monitored to ensure proper treatment of resources and
to ensure crews follow proper reporting, safeguards and procedures.
CO-163. Require that a certified geologist or paleoresources consultant determine
appropriate protection measures when resources are discovered during the
course of development and land altering activities.
CO-166. Development surrounding areas of historic significance shall have compatible
design in order to protect and enhance the historic quality of the areas.
8-12
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
CO-169. Restrict the circulation of cultural resource location information to prevent
potential site vandalism. This information is exempt from the "Freedom of
Information Act".
DISCLOSURE OF CULTURAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
Public disclosure of site specific cultural resources information is expressly exempt from
the California Public Records Act, Government Code Sections 6250-6270.
Furthermore, information obtained during Native American consultation or through
consultation with the local and state agencies, including the North Central Information
Center (NCIC), should remain confidential and is exempt from public disclosure under
Senate Bill 922. Additionally Sacramento County staff has signed an “Agreement to
Confidentiality” with the NCIC that states that site specific information will not be
distributed or released to the public or unauthorized individuals. An authorized
individual is a professional archaeologist or historian that qualifies under the Secretary
of Interior’s standards to view confidential cultural resources materials.
METHODOLOGY
Archival research, Native American consultation, and fieldwork were conducted to
establish what cultural resources may be present within the Project area and,
furthermore, may be impacted as a result of implementation of the proposed Project.
Note that although the Project would have a relatively small area of direct impact, a
much greater area was evaluated to determine impacts to cultural resources due to
potential visual impacts from the proposed 500-foot tall tower. The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) has established that towers of this height should
evaluate indirect visual impacts to cultural resources within one half mile radius around
the area of direct impacts.
PRE-FIELD RESEARCH
INFORMATION CENTER RECORD SEARCH
Data maintained by the North Central Information Center (NCIC) of the California
Historical Resources Information System (CSU-Sacramento) including State and federal
listings of significant cultural resources and associated data bases was conducted by
PAR Environmental on April 23, 2012. Standard references and lists consulted include
the following:

National Register of Historic Places (United States Department of the Interior
[USDI] 1979, and computerized updates);

California Register of Historic Resources (California Department of Parks and
Recreation [DPR] 1998, and computerized updates);
8-13
PLNP2012-UPP-00035

California Historical Landmarks (California DPR 1996, and computerized
updates);

California Inventory of Historic Resources (California DPR 1976, obsolete);

Historic Properties Directory (California DPR, and computerized updates;

California Points of Historical Interest (California DPR 1992, computerized
updates through September 2009);

Archaeological Site Records;

NCIC, California Historic Resource Information System historic resource records
and maps;

Historic GLO plat maps and historic USGS Buffalo Creek Quadrangle maps;

Gold Districts of California (1979);

California Gold Camps (1975);

California Place Names (1969);

Survey of Surveys (Historic and Architectural Resources) (1989);

Caltrans Local Bridge Survey (1989);

Caltrans State Bridge Survey (1987), and;

Historic Spots in California (1990).
CONSULTATION
PAR mailed letters to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), Sacramento County Historical Society (SCHS) and Mr.
Dwight Dutschke (OHP) to inform these agencies and individuals about the proposed
project and to request any information about the site that may provide cultural insight.
Additionally, PAR contacted individuals and organizations identified by the NAHC. To
date, two organizations have requested a copy of the cultural resources report.
Additional consultation may occur during the Federal Section 106 process; however, to
date, no replies have been received that affect the conclusions of this document.
FIELD ASSESSMENT
PEDESTRIAN SURVEY
An intensive pedestrian survey of the area of direct impact was conducted utilizing the
transect approach. The survey was undertaken by PAR on May 2, 2012. For the
archaeological survey, transects were walked with 5 to 10-meter intervals between each
transect. During the transects, the ground surface was carefully inspected for evidence
of historical use such as fragments of ceramics, metal, and glass, and for indications of
prehistoric use such as chipped stone artifacts and debitage, ground stone artifacts,
8-14
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
bone fragments, and soil color changes. Exposures of subsurface soil were carefully
examined. The survey was conducted to the standards set by the Secretary of Interior
(National Park Service 1990, 1983).
When prehistoric or historic-era resources were encountered, they were documented on
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Series 523 Primary,
Archaeological Site, and other DPR forms as necessary. Each site, feature, or isolated
artifact was photographed and mapped as a point, line, or polygon as appropriate on
appropriate USGS topographic quadrangle maps.
PEDESTRIAN SURVEY RESULTS
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
Two ranch complexes are within the KXPR Radio Tower project area and have the
potential to be directly or indirectly impacted. The Barn Complex is located adjacent to
the direct impact zone of the proposed radio tower site. The S. B. Moore Ranch
Compound is situated one-half mile northeast of the site within the visual APE. A
description of these resources is included below.
BARN COMPLEX (CA-SAC-_____ [NO ASSIGNED TRINOMIAL, TO DATE])
This resource consists of a complex of ranch related structures just east of Kiefer
Boulevard. The complex includes three barns, a shed and corrals. The property is
located on a slight knoll top above the floodplain just north of Deer Creek, near
Sloughhouse in Sacramento County. The barns are surrounded by fenced pasture
fields. The prominent structure at the site is a two-story gable-roofed barn measuring
40 feet square. The barn was built around 1960. The barn has vertical boarding siding
and sits on a concrete stem foundation. The roof is covered with metal sheets. The
north-facing façade has a central tall double door with hinges on each side. It is flanked
by two sets of shorter double doors that slide open along a top bar. A small double hay
door is centered in the eaves above the tall set of doors.
South of the barn, near Deer Creek, sits a second structure over 50 years of age and a
small wood-framed shed. The shed has a gable roof and sits on corner concrete pier
blocks. It appears to date to the late 1920s or 1930s. The roof is clad with metal
sheets. The siding is vertical board, with a few batten boards remaining in some places.
Fenestration consists of a single window opening (window is gone) centered on each of
the east, north and south-facing facades. The west façade has a centrally placed
pedestrian door with metal hinges and a white porcelain door knob. The interior of the
shed contains a few wood built in shelves, supports for a work bench, and a wood floor.
There is no ceiling.
8-15
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Other structures on the site include a cattle-loading chute, corral, two concrete water
troughs, two gable roof pole barns, a well head, cylindrical metal storage tank and water
measuring gauge. While the well may be over 50 years of age, the other structures are
modern.
S. B. MOORE RANCH COMPOUND (CA-SAC-_____[NO ASSIGNED TRINOMIAL, TO
DATE])
This complex is the historic ranch of S. B. Moore, located in Lee Township. Moore
purchased this property before 1870, establishing a sheep ranch. Moore and his wife,
Ellen, made their home there and established a prosperous operation. By 1875, they
owned 917 acres stretching northwest from Deer Creek. Their operation included 600
sheep, 40 hogs, horses and colts, wagons and a mule. That year they were also
assessed for 10 tons of hay, which they harvested on their land. In addition to their
home and ranch buildings, Moore also held $2,000 in secured debts (mortgages) and a
note, indicating he was sufficiently well-off to loan money to others. Their ranch is
illustrated in Thompson and West’s 1880 history of Sacramento County. The drawing
depicts a lively ranch with a corral full of sheep, a large hay wagon, numerous
outbuildings and two one-story dwellings. Moore was also active in the community and
served on Sacramento County’s Board of Supervisors during the 1870s. (Sacramento
County Tax Assessor’s Roll 1875; Thompson and West 1880:133).
S. B. Moore died in 1905, leaving his estate to his wife, Ellen. Ellen continued to live on
the ranch, although she leased it to W. R. Grimshaw to operate. She sold other land
and held mortgages owing her nearly $75,000, a considerable sum at that time. She
died In 1910 at the age of 71. The family’s prosperity was noteworthy and the
Sacramento Union wrote an article headlined “Sacramento woman Leaves $90,000
Estate” at the time of her death. The following year, the ranch property was sold at
public auction, with Arnold Saner putting in the winning bid of $22,550 (Sacramento
County 1911 [probate for Ellen Moore]; Sacramento Union August 16, 1910). A Swiss
native, Saner operated a dairy ranch at the site and made cheese at the site well into
the twentieth century (Reed 1923).
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The Moore Ranch Compound is located on the north side of Deer Creek, about five
miles northeast of Sloughhouse. The compound consists of 15 structures and a ranch
house built between 1870 and the 1980s. The original ranch encompassed 900 acres
of land and was bought and developed by S. B. Moore. Today several of the structures
reflect the Moore sheep ranch operation (1870-1910), and three are associated with the
Arnold Saner dairy (started in 1911). The remaining buildings and structures were
added to the ranch after World War II, including at least three built in the 1980s and
1990.
The centerpiece of the ranch property is the Italianate-styled Victorian house. This twostory house has a hipped roof, wrap-around porches, decorative braces defining the
8-16
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
roof eave, molded and styled window surrounds and a wood-and-glass front door. Two
detailed chimneys protrude from the roof line. The house is surrounded by large oaks
and other mature deciduous trees and backs up to Deer Creek.
The house faces north, looking out across the rest of the ranch compound. Historic
structures include two large barns, one to the north of the house and one to the east.
These barns are two stories in height with gable roofs (now clad with metal sheets) and
horizontal board siding. They both date circa 1870 and were built by S. B. Moore. The
north barn was the original sheep barn, while the east barn housed Moore’s horses and
cattle. The old sheep barn is surrounded by a fenced corral area with a wood cattle
chute. Additional historic structures include a hipped roof smoke house and gable roof
shed west of the house, and a row of structures along the main road into the compound,
east of the northern barn. These structures include a gable roof shed or house, a thickwalled stone building with wood beam lintels above the door and window, a hipped roof,
one-story wood-framed dwelling, a Quonset hut, and a gable roofed shed. These
structures date from the 1880s into the 1920s. The Quonset hut was added to the
ranch after 1946 but is over 50 years of age.
Modern structures include three pole barns built after 1975 and added to the fringes of
the compound. One of these structures is next to the house and shelters a doublewide
mobile home. A single wide mobile home is under the eastern structure. The third pole
barn is on the north edge of the compound and is in disrepair. The ranch compound is
surrounded by open pasture.
PREHISTORIC RESOURCES
Prehistoric resources were not located within the area of potential effect. Although no
specific surface artifacts were discovered during the archaeological survey, the barn
and corral near Kiefer Boulevard are situated on an elevated mound, close to Deer
Creek. Given the prehistoric sensitivity of the area, the probability of encountering subsurface prehistoric material is moderate to high. Previous investigations along the Deer
Creek and Cosumnes River drainages have revealed a rich material culture (varied
artifact categories ranging from milling tools, projectile points, shell bead ornaments,
bone tools) and evidence of permanent occupations and burial mounds.
In order for a cultural resource to be considered a “historic property” under NRHP
criteria (i.e., eligible for inclusion on the NRHP), it must be demonstrated that the
resource possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling and association, and must meet at least one of the following four criteria
delineated by Section 106 (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 2000), as listed in
36 CFR 60.4:
8-17
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
(a) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of our history; or
(b) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(c) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction; or
(d) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in
accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing on the NRHP,
enumerated above, and require similar protection to what NHPA Section 106 mandates
for historic properties. According to PRC Section 5024.1(c)(1-4), a resource is
considered historically significant if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of
installation, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values; or
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
Under CEQA, if an archeological site is not a significant “historical resource” but meets
the definition of a “unique archeological resource” as defined in PRC Section 21083.2,
then it should be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section. A unique
archaeological resource is defined as follows:
An archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly
demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there
is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research
questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that
information.
(2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type
or the best available example of its type.
8-18
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
(3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important
prehistoric or historic event or person.
Resources that neither meet any of these criteria for listing on the NRHP or CRHR nor
qualify as a “unique archaeological resource” under CEQA PRC Section 21083.2 are
viewed as not significant. Under CEQA, “A non-unique archaeological resource need
be given no further consideration, other than the simple recording of its existence by the
lead agency if it so elects” (PRC Section 21083.2(h)).
Impacts to significant cultural resources (“historic properties” under NHPA and
“historical resources” under CEQA) that affect the characteristics of any resource that
qualify it for the NRHP or adversely alter the significance of a resource listed on or
eligible for listing on the CRHR are considered a significant effect on the environment
(CEQA guidelines 15065(a)(1)). Impacts to significant cultural resources from a
proposed project are thus considered significant if a project physically destroys or
damages all or part of a resource, changes the character of the use of the resource or
physical feature within the setting of the resource which contribute to its significance or
introduces visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of
significant features of the resource.
IMPACT: SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT TO A HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL
RESOURCE
Two potential historic architectural resources/complexes were indentified within the
areas of direct and indirect impact. An impact assessment and evaluation for each of
these resources is included separately below.
THE BARN COMPLEX
EVALUATION
This ranch complex is not associated with an event or person important in local history.
The late construction date reflects post-World War II prosperity, but is not unusual in the
development of the area. It is one of many barns and ranch-related complexes built in
the area during the 1950s and 1960s; many are still visible on the landscape around
Sloughhouse. The barn and shed are not architecturally unique and do not represent
the work of a master. Therefore, the architectural elements of the complex do not meet
Criterion A, B or C for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, nor do they
represent a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
There are no historical archaeological artifacts on the site.
8-19
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This resource is not considered significant and no impacts are anticipated from the
project.
S. B. MOORE RANCH COMPOUND
EVALUATION
This ranch complex is associated with the early development of the sheep industry
around Sloughhouse and with S. B. Moore, a prominent Sacramento County rancher.
Moore was a County Supervisor, a leader in the local sheep ranching industry, and
important in the development of Sloughhouse. The ranch appears to meet Criteria A
and B for its role in the development of Sacramento County sheep industry and
association with Moore. The house, two large barns, and two outbuildings are reflective
of Moore’s ownership and convey a sense of the nineteenth-century ranch complex.
The two barns and house also meet Criterion C as a representation of a nineteenthcentury ranch. The Italianate style ranch house, while once common, is now rare in the
region, as many of the older ranch compounds have been removed, abandoned or
expanded. The barns are easily identifiable as those structures apparent in the 1880
illustration, lending weight to their eligibility. The layout and design of the ranch is also
evident, reflecting Moore’s arrangement of ranch house along the creek, sheep barn up
on the hill away from the house, and horse/cow barn near the house.
The ranch retains integrity of setting, location, feeling, association, and design. The two
barns, house, smokehouse and stone building have a high level of integrity of materials,
workmanship and of architectural design. The addition of ranch buildings from around
1911 (after Ellen died) to the 1980s has not detracted from the overall integrity. These
additional buildings are either small in mass or, in the case of pole barns, were built on
the outskirts of the original arrangement of structures and blend well with the historic
structures.
The period of significance for the ranch compound is 1870-1910, reflecting the Moore’s
development and occupancy of the site. The ranch appears eligible for inclusion in the
National Register at a local level under Criteria A, B and C and is considered an
historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
At this time no archaeological survey were conducted at the ranch. Given the age of
the ranch, the likelihood of subsurface hollow-filled features (such as privies, wells,
trash /burn pits) that could contain discarded material related to the Moore’s use is high.
In addition, the historic sheep barn is set on an elevated mound, close to Deer Creek.
Given both the historic and prehistoric sensitivity of the ranch in particular and Deer
Creek area in general, and the potential for subsurface deposits, the complex was not
evaluated under Criterion D at this time.
8-20
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The proposed tower site is located one-half mile southwest of the Moore ranch
compound. The house itself is screened by majestic oaks and other mature trees and
the tower would not be visible from the viewshed of the house. It would be visible from
other parts of the ranch compound, such as the northern barn. The viewshed of the
property has already been altered in the past by the installation of telephone and utility
poles. Two poles are included within the compound and have already intruded on the
setting of the property. The installation of the radio tower, while certainly an intrusion on
the landscape, will not significantly alter the setting of the ranch compound, given the
changes that have already occurred. The tower site is well west of the ranch, will not be
visible from the house and will not result in an adverse effect to the overall open space
feel of the ranch compound. Therefore, the tower will not have an adverse effect under
36 CFR 800 or a significant impact under CEQA.
CONCLUSION
The Barn Complex is not considered architecturally or historically significant; thus the
project would result in less than significant impacts to the Barn Complex. Although
the Project is within the viewshed of the historically significant S. B. Moore Ranch
Compound, the Project would result in less than significant indirect visual impacts to
the resource.
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
IMPACT: SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACT TO A PREHISTORIC
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE
No surface prehistoric resources were found within the area of direct impact; however
the potential for buried prehistoric material is considered to be moderate to high. An
impact to these resources is considered a potentially significant impact. CEQA requires
that lead agencies protect both known and unknown cultural resources; therefore,
mitigation is recommended to ensure that in the event that cultural resources are
discovered during implementation phases that all work shall be halted until a qualified
archaeologist may evaluate the resource encountered. Additionally, mitigation is
recommended requiring an archaeological and Native American monitor during
construction within the most sensitive areas determined during the field effort. With
mitigation, environmental impacts to potentially sensitive cultural resources are
MITIGATION MEASURES
CR-1
Unanticipated Discoveries of Buried Cultural Resources During Project
Implementation Phases
8-21
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are
discovered during construction, then all work must halt within a 200-foot
radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting
the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for
prehistoric and historic archaeology, shall be retained at the Applicant’s
expense to evaluate the significance of the find. If it is determined due to
the types of deposits discovered that a Native American monitor is
required, the Guidelines for Monitors/Consultants of Native American
Cultural, Religious, and Burial Sites as established by the Native American
Heritage Commission shall be followed, and the monitor shall be retained
at the Applicant’s expense.
Work cannot continue within the 200-foot radius of the discovery site until
the archaeologist conducts sufficient research and data collection to make
a determination that the resource is either 1) not cultural in origin; or 2) not
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or
California Register of Historical Resources.
If a potentially eligible resource is encountered, then the archaeologist,
DERA, and project proponent shall arrange for either 1) total avoidance of
the resource, if possible; or 2) test excavations or total data recovery as
mitigation. The determination shall be formally documented in writing and
submitted to DERA as verification that the provisions of CEQA for
managing unanticipated discoveries have been met.
In addition, pursuant to Section 5097.97 of the State Public Resources
Code and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, in the
event of the discovery of human remains, all work is to stop and the
County Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are
determined to be Native American, guidelines of the Native American
Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition
of the remains.
CR-2
Archaeological and Native American Monitor
Prior to any land clearing, grubbing, excavation or construction within 10
meters from the toe of the slope of any of the Barn Complex structures,
the project proponent shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor. The
archaeological monitor shall be present during the entire duration of
ground disturbance within the identified monitoring area (i.e. within 10
meters from the toe of the slope of all structures within the Barn Complex
as identified in PAR’s study entitled: A Systematic Archaeological Survey
of the KXPR Radio Tower Use Permit, June 2012). The project proponent
shall also notify and extend an invitation to monitor the excavation
activities to representatives from each tribal representative identified by
the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Notification shall
occur no less than 10 business days prior to any ground disturbance. The
8-22
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
project proponent shall notify interested parties through certified mail
utilizing contact information as maintained by the current NAHC tribal
contact list.
In the instance that interested parties decline the invitation to monitor
construction activities or do not respond, no further tribal monitoring is
required; however, the archaeological monitor is still required and the
construction contractors shall exercise due diligence in monitoring for
unanticipated discoveries as outlined in Mitigation Measure CR-1.
IMPACT: ADVERSE IMPACT TO HUMAN REMAINS
Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 7050 of the California
Health and Safety Code protect Native American burials, skeletal remains and grave
goods, regardless of age and provide method and means for the appropriate handling of
such remains. If human remains are encountered, work should halt in that vicinity and
the County coroner should be notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist
should be contacted to evaluate the situation. If the human remains are of Native
American origin, the coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours of such identification. In the event that a burial is discovered during
implementation of the KXPR Radio Tower Project, strict adherence to mitigation as
outlined in Mitigation Measure CR-1 (see above) would reduce this impact to less than
significant levels.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Implement Mitigation Measure CR-1.
Significant impacts to cultural resources are considered cumulative impacts since each
impact contributes to the overall loss of the cultural and historic setting. However, the
proposed project does not result in an impact to known significant cultural resources;
thus the proposed project does not contribute to the degradation of the overall cultural
landscape. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable incremental impact to cultural resources.
8-23
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
9 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND THEIR DISPOSITION
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
The project is considered to be an introduction of an incompatible use in the vicinity of
existing agricultural uses; the project is not consistent with the intent of the Agricultural
Element of the Sacramento County General Plan.
At its proposed location the tower is in close proximity to active agricultural operations at
Davis Ranch that rely on aerial application. There are currently no viable alternatives to
maintaining the current yield and quality of the sweet corn and other produce from the
Davis Ranch farmlands if aerial application is not feasible; therefore, this impact is
considered significant and unavoidable.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS WHICH COULD BE AVOIDED
WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Approval of the proposed project will result in several potentially significant impacts that
can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Those impacts relate to
biological resources, public safety and cultural resources and are discussed below.
RIPARIAN HABITAT
The project applicant has indicated that two trees within the riparian corridor along the
tributary to Deer Creek will have to trimmed to ensure that the guy wires spanning over
the tributary will not be affected by the trees. This will result in a slight loss to riparian
canopy coverage. Mitigation includes canopy replacement (Mitigation Measure BR-1)
that requires on-site re-vegetation plan equal to the loss of canopy area, or if the
required number of trees cannot be accommodated on-site, payment into the County’s
Tree Preservation Fund or the Sacramento Tree Foundation’s NATURE program and
riparian habitat construction protection (Mitigation Measure BR-2). These measures will
reduce this impact to less than significant.
NESTING RAPTORS/ NESTING SWAINSON’S HAWK
The project site contains suitable nesting habitats for nesting raptors that are fully
protected under California Fish and Game Code Section 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515.
9-1
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
9 - SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND THEIR DISPOSITION
Mitigation requiring a pre-construction focused survey for raptor nests if construction
activities occur between March 1 and September 15.
COMMUNICATION TOWER BIRD STRIKES
There is a potential for the tower to attract birds and thus increase the number of bird
strikes. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation to reduce the potential for
daytime bird strikes by using industry accepted visual markers designed to prevent
collisions by diurnally active bird species has been recommended (Mitigation Measure
BR-5). Mitigation to reduce bird collisions as a result of attraction/confusion due to
lighting of the tower will require that the lighting of the tower at night shall use white light
(instead of red) and use the minimum number of lights, with minimum intensity and
minimum number of flashes per minute as allowed by the FAA (Mitigation Measure BR6). These mitigation measures will reduce this impact to less than significant.
PUBLIC SAFETY
The radio tower is proposed to be 500 feet tall. Pursuant to federal regulations, the
applicant contacted FAA to determine if there would be a substantial adverse affect to
air navigation and air safety. The FAA conducted an aeronautical study under the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. Section 44718 and Title 14 of the CFR, Part 77. The
aeronautical study concluded that the structure would not have a substantial adverse
effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft and that
the cumulative impact of the structure, when combined with other existing structures is
not considered significant. FAA placed two conditions on the project and issued a
Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation. Those two conditions were included as
mitigation. Upon compliance, impacts to air navigation would be considered less than
significant.
Adjacent to the proposed tower site is an active farming operation that uses fixed wing
planes for aerial applications. There are existing obstacles surrounding the adjacent
fields. Although the proposed project will introduce an additional obstacle to the area
for the aerial applicator, the agricultural pilot is responsible to check for obstacles and
evaluate the condition of the site prior to spraying/flying. Since the FAA issued a
Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, with conditions (included as mitigation),
the impact to aircraft navigation and safety is considered less than significant.
CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
IMPACTS TO PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE
A cultural resources study was conducted for the project site. There were no surface
prehistoric resources found within the area of direct impact; however there remains a
moderate to high potential for unanticipated discovery of subsurface prehistoric
material. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation is recommended
to ensure that in the event that cultural resources are discovered during project
9-2
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
implementation, all work shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist may evaluate the
resource encountered. In addition, mitigation is recommended requiring an
archaeological and Native American monitor during construction within the most
sensitive areas determined during the field survey. With mitigation, the environmental
impacts to potentially sensitive cultural resources are considered less than significant.
IMPACT TO HUMAN REMAINS
Native American burials, skeletal remains and grave goods, regardless of age, are
provided protection under Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section
7050 of the California Health and Safety Code. Implementation of the proposed project
may uncover human remains. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation has been recommended that if human remains are encountered, work shall
halt in that vicinity and the County coroner shall be notified immediately. At the same
time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. Mitigation will
reduce this impact to less than significant.
EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Approval of the proposed project will result in less than significant impacts in the areas
of: land use, farmland conversion, Williamson Act consistency, radio frequency
emissions, tower failure, visual resources, biological resources, traffic and circulation,
air quality, hydrology and drainage, geology and soils, water quality, exposure to
hazardous materials, noise, public services and climate change.
LAND USE
The proposed project does not conflict with the goals or policies of the Sacramento
County General Plan Land Use Element, nor will the proposed project conflict with the
Sacramento County Zoning Code. The proposed project will not result in the diversion
or disruption of an established community and will not induce substantial population
growth. The proposed project will not conflict with any existing habitat conservation
plan.
The proposed project is compatible with the identified uses of the existing Williamson
Act Contract. The proposed project will not result in the cancellation of the existing
Williamson Act Contract.
The project site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance. The direct impact area
of the project is 0.78 acres and the total project area is 1.6 acres. The project will not
result in a significant loss of farmlands.
9-3
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
PUBLIC SAFETY
The proposed project will not expose workers or the general public to radio frequency
emissions above FCC standards.
The tower will be engineered to meet or exceed all requirements of the Uniform Building
Code; therefore tower collapse is highly unlikely. However, in the rare event of tower
failure, the fall zone would be considered the radius around the base of the tower equal
to the height of the tower. There are no structures within 500 feet of the tower; tower
failure will not have a significant impact to people or structures.
VISUAL RESOURCES
The project site is not located within a scenic vista or along a State scenic highway;
therefore the proposed project would not result in an adverse affect on a scenic vista
nor would the project damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway.
The proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings based on an analysis of the intactness, vividness
and unity of the project site with its surroundings. Impacts were found to be less than
significant, although it is acknowledged that visual quality is intensely subjective.
The tower will be lit with high intensity white LED strobes by day and low intensity white
LED by night; therefore, the proposed project will not introduce substantial light that
could affect the day or nighttime views.
The project will not conflict with the Sacramento County General Plan’s designated
scenic corridor (Labrobe Road).
The proposed project will not result in a change to the zoning of the site (AG-80);
therefore, there would not be a loss to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. The footprint
of the proposed project is small (total disturbed area is 0.78 acres, total project area is
1.6 acres) and thus there are no adverse impacts to available Swainson’s hawk foraging
habitat.
A blackberry thicket is located just over 750 feet north of the project site. Construction
associated with the proposed project is not expected to impact nesting tricolored
blackbirds; impacts are considered less than significant.
During construction of the project, the applicant will place a metal sheet as a temporary
bridge across the tributary channel to prevent impacts to the channel bed and bank;
impacts to waters of the U.S. (Deer Creek and the tributary to Deer Creek) are
9-4
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
The following section provides a brief analysis of impacts found to not be significant.
Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines states that for effects not found to be significant,
an EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible
significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore
not discussed in detail in the EIR. The following impact sections relate to
environmental factors that were found to not be significant.
IMPACT: TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The project is a request for the installation and operation of a 500-foot FM radio tower.
The tower will be an unmanned facility that would require occasional maintenance. The
project will not generate any daily trips.
The project site is accessed from a dirt and gravel private road off of Kiefer Boulevard
with an existing gate approximately 100 feet in from Kiefer Boulevard. From this access
road, an additional access road will be installed to access the tower from the gravel
road (refer to Plate SI -1). The access road will be 16 feet wide. The access road will
be required to be installed consistent with County improvement standards.
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G indicates that traffic and circulation impacts may be
significant if the project will cause: (a) a substantial increase in traffic or exceed a level
of service standard; (b) substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g.
sharp curves); (c) result in inadequate emergency access; or (d) conflict with an
adopted transit plan. In Sacramento County, level of service (LOS) standards are
defined by Sacramento County General Plan Circulation Element Policy CI-9 (updated
November 2011). According to this policy, an acceptable Level of Service is D on rural
roadways (rural roadways are defined as roadways located outside the Urban Services
Boundary). Level of Service (LOS) is a term that describes the operating performance
of an intersection or roadway segment. LOS is reported on a scale from A to F, with “A”
representing the best and “F” representing the worst performance. If a proposed project
would cause a roadway currently operating at an acceptable LOS to decline to an
unacceptable LOS, impacts are significant. If a roadway is already operating at an
unacceptable LOS, a significant impact would result if the project results in an increase
in traffic by more than 5% (referred to as a volume-to-capacity increase of 0.05).
PROJECT IMPACTS
The only traffic generated by the proposed project would be occasional maintenance
visitations. As a result, on an average day the site will generate no traffic at all; the
project will not cause a level of service standard to be exceeded. The access road to
the tower will be off of a private access drive; therefore the project will not result in any
circulation modifications. Lastly, the project has no effect on alternative transportation
plans. Traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed project are considered less than
significant.
9-5
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate SI -1: Project Site Plans (over aerial photo)
Access Road
Private Road
9-6
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
IMPACT: AIR QUALITY
The proposed project site is located in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). The
SVAB’s frequent temperature inversions result in a relatively stable atmosphere that
increases the potential for pollution. Sacramento County is designated “severe” nonattainment for the federal 8-hour standard for ozone and “serious” non-attainment for
the California 1- and 8- hour standard for ozone. Sacramento County has nonattainment status for both federal and California particulate matter 10 microns in
diameter (PM10) and particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5).
Within the SVAB, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
(SMAQMD) is responsible for ensuring that emission standards are not violated.
Project related emissions would have a significant effect if they would result in
concentrations that either violate an ambient air quality standard or contribute to an
existing air quality violation. Moreover, SMAQMD has established significance
thresholds to determine if a proposed project’s emission contribution significantly
contributes to regional air quality impacts (Table SI-1). The major sources of emissions
related to the project are associated with site grading during construction (short-term).
A backup generator running on propane will be used for the tower. The generator will
require a permit from the SMAQMD. The generator will operate for routine maintenance
start up and only in the event of a widespread power outage. The generator would turn
off when the power is restored. The backup generator, combined with the few vehicle
trips associated with operation of the proposed project, results in little to no operational
(long-term) emissions attributed to the proposed project.
Table SI-1: SMAQMD Significance Thresholds
ROG1
(lbs/day)
NOx
(lbs/day)
None
65
Construction (short-term)
Operational (long-term)
CO
(µg/m3)
PM10
(µg/m3)
85
CAAQS2
CAAQS
65
CAAQS
CAAQS
1. Reactive Organic Gas
2. California Ambient Air Quality Standards
PROJECT IMPACTS
The SMAQMD “Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County” (December
2009, as amended, hereinafter called the SMAQMD Guide) contains screening
thresholds for significant impacts. Some PM10 emissions during project construction can
be reduced through compliance with institutional requirements for dust abatement and
erosion control. These institutional measures include the SMAQMD “District Rule 403-
9-7
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Fugitive Dust” and measures in the Sacramento County Code relating to land grading
and erosion control [Title 16, Chapter 16.44, Section 16.44.090(K)]. Dispersion
modeling conducted for projects of various sizes has resulted in the conclusion that
projects involving more than 15 acres of active grading at any one time will result in
significant impacts, even with standard dust abatement measures. The text is
emphasized to note that the screening threshold does not speak to the total project
area, but to the largest total area that will be actively graded at any given time. The
project site is approximately 1.6 acres in size and of that area, approximately 0.78 acre
will be disturbed. The area of grading at any one time will not exceed 15 acres; and
compliance with District Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust will ensure that PM10 emissions during
construction remain less than significant.
The SMAQMD Guide also provides screening tables for construction-related ozone
precursor emissions, based on the type of project. The modeling performed for the
screening table in the SMAQMD Guide used the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS)
2007 Version 9.2.4. The model assumed typical construction activities that include:
mass site grading, asphalt paving, building construction, and architectural coatings (but
does not assume demolition). The modeling also assumed some overlap of
construction phases (e.g., asphalt paving and mass site grading may occur
simultaneously for two weeks). Construction activities for the proposed project will not
include building construction or architectural coatings. In addition, the project will only
have a concrete pad for the equipment shelter which will not result in large areas of
asphalt paving. For these reasons, the potential for significant emission generation
during construction of the proposed project is very low. Furthermore, the screening
table shows that for general light industry land uses, the screening level is 29 acres and
the construction of a city park would have to be greater than 60 acres before there
would be a potential for significant construction NOx emissions. Since the disturbed
area of the project site is less than one acre and construction of the proposed project
would only involve mass site grading (and not involve large areas of asphalt paving,
building construction or architectural coatings), the project is not expected to result in
significant construction emissions that could exceed established SMAQMD thresholds.
The emission generation potential of the proposed project to worsen air quality is
IMPACT: HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
The project site is located within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Flood Zone A, as determined by the 1988 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM),
panel number 060262-0250C (refer to Plate SI -2). Flood Zone A is identified as a
special flood hazard area, defined as areas subject to inundation by the 1-percent
annual chance flood event (i.e., 100-year flood event). No base flood elevations (BFEs)
or flood depths are shown since no detailed hydraulic analyses have been completed
for the area. The site is located within the Deer Creek watershed.
9-8
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Plate SI -2: FEMA 1988 Flood Zone Map
=
Project Location
9-9
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
The proposed project was reviewed by staff (M. Rains) of the Sacramento County
Department of Water Resources (DWR) and DWR noted that as the subject property is
largely encumbered by the FEMA Flood Zone A, any structure constructed and any
other improvements susceptible to flood damage, must be elevated by 1.5 feet above
the 100-year floodplain elevation. As stated above, Flood Zone A on the FEMA FIRM
does not have base flood elevations determined; therefore, DWR has noted that the
100-year floodplain elevation will be determined by DWR once DWR receives more
information regarding the exact location of improvements.
DWR provided conditions of approval for the project. DWR requires drainage
easements as needed and payment of any fee required by the Sacramento County
Water Agency Code. DWR is also requiring that the installation of facilities must be
done pursuant to the Sacramento County Floodplain Management Ordinance,
Sacramento County Water Agency Code and Sacramento County Improvement
Standards. DWR also recommends the condition that the minimum pad/floor elevations
shall be required pursuant to the Sacramento County Floodplain Management
Ordinance.
According to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, a project would have a significant
impact if the project would result in altering the existing drainage patterns in such a way
that it causes flooding; contributes runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater infrastructure; place housing within the 100-year floodplain; place
structures in a 100-year floodplain that would cause substantial impacts as a result of
impeding or redirecting flood flows; or expose people or structures to substantial loss of
life, health, or property as a result of flooding.
PROJECT IMPACTS
The site is located within a 100-year floodplain, but the developed portion of the project
would encompass only 0.78 acres of the entire 268-acre property. As the developed
portion of the project is small, there is not a large area of encroachment within the
floodplain. The project would not result in altering the drainage patterns that could
result in increase flooding. Compliance with DWR recommended conditions of approval
of elevating the pad/floor elevation at least 1.5 feet above the base flood elevation,
consistent with the Sacramento County Floodplain Management Ordinance, will ensure
no adverse impacts to the structures as a result of flooding. Furthermore, as the project
consists of a radio tower and associated equipment which will not be manned, there
would not be exposure to people or structures that could result in a substantial loss of
life, health, or property as a result of flooding. Appropriate drainage facilities as
required by DWR will ensure that there are no adverse drainage impacts. Drainage and
hydrology impacts are considered less than significant.
9-10
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
IMPACT: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The project site is located in the southeastern portion of Sacramento County. Appendix
G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that a project would be significant if it would expose
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury or death involving (i) rupture of a known earthquake fault; (ii) strong seismic
ground shaking; (iii) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction or (iv)
landslides. Additionally, a project would be considered significant if it would (a) result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; (b) be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project; (c) be located on
expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property; or (d) 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. Furthermore,
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines finds that impacts to mineral resources would
result if the project would (a) result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of a value to the region and the residents of the state or (b) result in the
loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the
a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
Although the project site is located in an area where sewer service is not available, the
project site would not require the use of septic tanks as the project facility will not be
manned on a regular basis and therefore, will not require the use of septic systems.
This is not an impact as a result of the proposed project.
The soils in the area are not considered to be unstable, nor are they considered to be
expansive
The project would not result in the permanent loss of availability of a known resource;
this impact is considered less than significant. Furthermore, the project site is not
located in an area that has been delineated on any local plan as having an important
mineral resource.
IMPACT: WATER QUALITY
EROSION/GRADING
Sacramento County has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Municipal Stormwater Permit issued by the Regional Board. The Municipal Stormwater
Permit requires the County to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the
maximum extent practicable. The County complies with this permit in part by
developing and enforcing ordinances and requirements to reduce the discharge of
sediments and other pollutants in runoff from newly developing and redeveloping areas
of the County.
9-11
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
SACRAMENTO COUNTY ORDINANCES
The County has established a Stormwater Ordinance (Sacramento County Code,
Chapter 15.12). The Stormwater Ordinance prohibits the discharge of unauthorized
non-stormwater to the County’s stormwater conveyance system and local creeks. It
applies to all private and public projects in the County, regardless of size or land use
type. In addition, the Land Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance (Sacramento
County Code, Chapter 16.44) requires private construction sites disturbing one or more
acres or moving 350 cubic yards or more of earthen material to obtain a grading permit.
To obtain a grading permit, project proponents must prepare and submit for approval an
Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan describing erosion and sediment control best
management practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during construction to prevent
sediment from leaving the site and entering the County’s storm drain system or local
receiving waters. Construction projects not subject to SCC 16.44 are subject to the
Stormwater Ordinance (SCC 15.12) described above.
STATE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
In addition to complying with the County’s ordinances and requirements, construction
sites disturbing one or more acres are required to comply with the State’s General
Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities. The Construction General Permit is
issued by the State Water Resources Control Board
(http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/stormwtr/construction.html) and enforced by the Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Coverage is obtained by submitting a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Board prior to construction. The General Permit
requires preparation and implementation of a site-specific Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that must be kept on site at all times for review by the State
inspector.
Applicable projects applying for a County grading permit must show proof that an NOI
has been filed and must submit a copy of the SWPPP. Although the County has no
enforcement authority related to the Construction General Permit, the County is
required by its Municipal Stormwater Permit to verify that SWPPPs include six minimum
components.
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION BMPS
During the wet season (October 1 – April 30), the project must include an effective
combination of erosion, sediment and other pollution control BMPs in compliance with
the County ordinances and the State’s Construction General Permit. During the rest of
the year, typically erosion controls are not required, except in the case of predicted rain.
Erosion controls should always be the first line of defense, to keep soil from being
mobilized in wind and water. Examples include stabilized construction entrances,
tackified mulch, 3-step hydroseeding, spray-on soil stabilizers and anchored blankets.
Sediment controls are the second line of defense; they help to filter sediment out of
runoff before it reaches the storm drains and local waterways. Examples include rock
9-12
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
bags to protect storm drain inlets, staked or weighted straw wattles/fiber rolls, and silt
fences.
In addition to erosion and sediment controls, the project must have BMPs in place to
keep other construction-related wastes and pollutants out of the storm drains. Such
practices include, but are not limited to: filtering water from dewatering operations,
providing proper washout areas for concrete trucks and stucco/paint contractors,
containing wastes, managing portable toilets properly, and dry sweeping instead of
washing down dirty pavement.
It is the responsibility of the property owner to verify that the proposed BMPs for the
project are appropriate for the unique site conditions, including topography, soil type
and anticipated volumes of water entering and leaving the site during the construction
phase. In particular, the project proponent should check for the presence of colloidal
clay soils on the site. Experience has shown that these soils do not settle out with
conventional sedimentation and filtration BMPs. The project proponent may wish to
conduct settling column tests in addition to other soils testing on the site, to ascertain
whether conventional BMPs will work for the project.
If sediment-laden or otherwise polluted runoff discharges from the construction site are
found to impact the County’s storm drain system and/or Waters of the State, the
property owner will be subject to enforcement action and possible fines by the County
and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board).
POST-CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES
Development and urbanization can increase pollutant loads, temperature, volume and
discharge velocity of runoff over the predevelopment condition. The increased volume,
increased velocity, and discharge duration of stormwater runoff from developed areas
has the potential to greatly accelerate downstream erosion and impair stream habitat in
natural drainage systems. Studies have demonstrated a direct correlation between the
degree of imperviousness of an area and the degradation of its receiving waters. These
impacts must be mitigated by requiring appropriate runoff reduction and pollution
prevention controls to minimize runoff and keep runoff clean for the life of the project.
The County requires that projects include source and/or treatment control measures be
installed on selected new development and redevelopment projects. Source control
BMPs are intended to keep pollutants from contacting site runoff. Examples include “No
Dumping-Drains to Creek/River” stencils/stamps on storm drain inlets to educate the
public, and providing roofs over areas likely to contain pollutants, so that rainfall does
not contact the pollutants. Treatment control measures are intended to remove
pollutants that have already been mobilized in runoff. Examples include vegetated
swales and water quality detention basins. These facilities slow water down and allow
sediments and pollutants to settle out prior to discharge to receiving waters.
Additionally, vegetated facilities provide filtration and pollutant uptake/adsorption. The
project proponent should consider the use of “low impact development” techniques to
reduce the amount of imperviousness on the site, since this will reduce the volume of
9-13
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
runoff and therefore will reduce the size/cost of stormwater quality treatment required.
Examples of low impact development techniques include pervious pavement and
bioretention facilities.
The County requires developers to utilize the Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the
Sacramento and South Placer Regions, 2007 (Design Manual) in selecting and
designing post-construction facilities to treat runoff from the project. This regulation
defines the development standards that the County is implementing and is reflected in
the Design Manual. Treatment control measures are required on new development and
redevelopment projects that meet or surpass the thresholds defined in Table 3-2 of the
Design Manual.
Updates and background on the County’s requirements for post-construction
stormwater quality treatment controls, along with several downloadable publications,
can be found at the following websites:
http://www.msa.saccounty.net/sactostormwater/SSQP/development.asp
http://www.sactostormwater.org/newdevelopment.asp
The final selection and design of post-construction stormwater quality control measures
is subject to the approval of the County Department of Water Resources; therefore, they
should be contacted as early as possible in the design process for guidance.
IMPACT: EXPOSURE TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The project site will not store or use any hazardous materials on the site. There would
not be any potential for any residents or workers near the site to be exposed to
hazardous materials. The proposed project will consist of a generator on the site, but
the operation of the generator will not involve the use of any hazardous materials. The
impact for potential exposure to hazardous materials is considered less than significant.
IMPACT: NOISE
The project site is located in a rural agricultural area. The General Plan Noise Element
provides standards for various types of noise sources. Policy NO-6 of the General Plan
Noise Element states that if a project consists of, or includes, non-transportation noise
sources, the noise generation of those sources shall be mitigated so as not to exceed
the interior and exterior noise level standards of Table 2 at existing noise-sensitive
areas in the project vicinity. Sensitive receptors identified in Table 2 of the Noise
Element includes all residential land uses and the following type of uses: transient
lodging, hospitals/nursing homes, theaters and auditoriums, churches, meeting halls,
schools, libraries, etc., office buildings, commercial buildings, playgrounds/parks and
industry. The site is surrounded by large agricultural 80 acres or larger sized parcels;
there are no noise sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project site.
According to the Noise Element of the General Plan, Policy NO-8 states that noise
associated with construction activities shall adhere to the County Code requirements.
9-14
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Specifically, Section 6.68.090(e) addresses construction noise within the County. Noise
Control Ordinance Section 6.68.090 outlines activities that are exempt from the
provisions of the Noise Ordinance. Section 6.68.090(e) finds that noise sources
associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, paving or grading of any
real property, provided said activities do not take place during specified hours are
exempt from the noise standards. Noise resulting from the construction of the project
would be exempt from any noise standards. Noise relating to construction activities of
the proposed project is considered less than significant.
Operation of the project would involve the use of a generator, which has the potential to
produce noise; however, as stated above, there are no noise standards for agricultural
land uses. Although there are no noise standards for agricultural land uses, the exterior
noise level established by the General Plan or Noise Control Ordinance for residential
uses (median noise level [L50] of 55 dB and maximum noise level [Lmax] is 75 dB) is not
expected to be exceeded due to attenuation of the noise source over the considerable
distance to the nearest residential structure. Noise impacts of the project are
IMPACT: PUBLIC SERVICES
The project site is located outside the Urban Service Boundary (USB) and the Urban
Policy Area (UPA), as defined in the Land Use Element of the Sacramento County
General Plan. The USB indicates the ultimate boundary of the urban area in the
unincorporated County. The UPA defines the area within the USB expected to receive
urban levels of public infrastructure and services within the planning period. Defining
the UPA is of key importance in the provision of urban services and infrastructure to the
unincorporated County, as it provides the geographic basis for infrastructure master
plans (particularly for public water and sewer services). The USB allows for the
permanent preservation of agriculture and rangelands, critical habitat and natural
resources, while the UPA concentrates and directs growth within previously urbanized
areas, limiting arbitrary and sprawling development patterns.
As the project site is located outside the USB, there are limited urban public facilities
and services available to the site. The project site would be provided some public
services including the provision of energy services, fire protection services, law
enforcement services, park services and school services. The site is not currently
served with a public water or sanitary sewer service and none is anticipated in the near
future. The proposed project consists of a radio tower and an unmanned transmission
facility that would not require water or sewer connections. Electrical and telephone
services would be extended to the site.
9-15
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
The limited public services available at the project site are included below:
Fire Protection Service
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District
Public Safety Service/ Law Enforcement Sacramento County Sheriff
Energy (Natural Gas/ Electrical)
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)/
Sacramento Metropolitan Utility District
(SMUD)
Local School District
Elk Grove Unified School District
Local Park District
Wilton-Cosumnes (County Service Area
4B)
The criteria used to evaluate the significance of public services and utility impacts as a
result of the proposed project are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and on
professional standards. Impacts of the proposed project on public services and utilities
are considered significant if implementing the project would:

Require the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities
and infrastructure that could potentially cause significant construction level
environmental effects;

Result in a service demand that cannot be met by existing or reasonably
foreseeable future service capacity.
PROJECT IMPACTS
As previously stated, the project site is not provided with public sewer or water services.
As the proposed radio tower will be an unmanned facility, the proposed project would
not require the use of potable water or septic systems; therefore there would be no
need for a well or septic system on the project site. The proposed project would also
not require the provision of park services or school services. There would not be any
additional demands placed on the Elk Grove Unified School District or the County
Service Area 4B Wilton-Cosumnes park district. Minor extensions of existing power
(approximately 300-400 feet) and additional power poles (same height as existing poles
located throughout the area) will be required; however, the energy use of the tower will
not result in a service demand that could not be reasonably met by SMUD. The project
would not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision
of services; impacts are considered less than significant.
9-16
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
IMPACT: CLIMATE CHANGE
The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of human activities
are CO2 (carbon dioxide), CH4 (methane), N2O (nitrous oxide), and fluorinated gases.
From 1750 to 2004, concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O have increased globally by
35, 143, and 18 percent, respectively. “In order to stabilize the concentration of GHGs
[greenhouse gases] in the atmosphere, emissions would need to peak and decline
thereafter. The lower the stabilization level, the more quickly this peak and decline
would need to occur. Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will have a
large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels.” (IPCC 2007)
ASSEMBLY BILL 32
In September 2006, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger of
California. AB 32 requires that California GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by
the year 2020. It is a comprehensive bill that requires the California Air Resources
Board (ARB) to adopt regulations requiring the reporting and verification of statewide
greenhouse gas emissions, and it establishes a schedule of action measures. AB 32
also requires that a list of emission reduction strategies be published to achieve
emissions reduction goals.
SENATE BILL 375
On September 30, 2008, Senate Bill (SB) 375 was signed by Governor
Schwarzenegger of California. SB 375 combines regional transportation planning with
sustainability strategies in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California’s
urbanized areas. Existing law requires each regional transportation planning agency,
which in Sacramento County’s case is the Sacramento Area Council of Governments
(SACOG), to adopt a Metropolitan Transportation Plan. SB 375 required the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) to set performance targets for reduction of passenger
vehicle emissions per capita in each of 16 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)
in the state for 2020 and 2035. For the SACOG MPO, these targets were set at 7%
below 2005 per capita emissions for 2020 and 16% below 2005 per capita emissions for
2035. MPOs are not required to meet the greenhouse gas emission targets established
by ARB, but if they conclude it is not feasible to do so, they must prepare an Alternative
Planning Scenario to demonstrate what further land use and/or transportation actions
would be required to meet the targets. SB 375 also requires that the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan for each MPO include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)
that integrates the land use and transportation components, and amends CEQA to
provide incentives for housing and mixed use projects that help to implement an
MTP/SCS that meets the ARB targets.
CEQA Guidelines section 16064.4 states that an agency should make a “good faith
effort . . . to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions
9-17
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
resulting from a project”. It is left to the lead agency’s discretion to use a quantitative or
qualitative approach. Factors that should be considered when determining significance
are:
1. The extent to which the project may increase or decrease greenhouse gas
emissions compared to the baseline;
2. whether the project exceeds any applicable significance threshold; and
3. the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted
to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions.
The guidelines do not include a numeric significance threshold, but instead defer to the
lead agency to determine whether there are thresholds which apply to the project. With
regard to the third item, statewide plans include AB 32 and SB 375, as described in the
Regulatory setting. The underlying strategy and assumptions of the AB 32 Scoping
Plan were used to develop County thresholds. AB 32 requires emissions be reduced to
1990 levels by the year 2020, which is estimated in the AB 32 Scoping Plan to be 15%
below existing (2005) emissions.
As previously discussed, Sacramento County prepared a GHG emissions inventory for
the County, and as an offshoot of that process has published a Draft Climate Action
Plan. Thresholds have been developed based on the County inventory (see Table SI-2
below). As shown below, separate thresholds have been included for each sector. The
purpose of this division is to provide additional information about the source of
emissions. When making a final determination of significance, these thresholds can be
combined to generate a total emissions threshold; it is this total threshold that will
ultimately determine whether impacts are found to be significant.
Table SI-2: Greenhouse Gas Significance Thresholds, in Metric Tons
Sector
Residential Energy
Commercial & Industrial Energy
Transportation
Trucks
2005 Baseline
2020
Target
1,033,142
877,883
1.33 per capita
772,129
656,660
7.87 per Kft2
2,046,617
1,740,000
488,806
415,218
Thresholds
2.64 per capita
0.10 per 100 VMT
Also note that the transportation sector is expressed in per capita, which is not
applicable to non-residential projects. The determination was made that, in general,
non-residential projects redistribute existing trips made by passenger vehicles – they do
not generate new trips. The majority of trips to and from a commercial project are
9-18
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
generated by residential uses. Residential projects are already being required to
account for transportation emissions, so including them for commercial projects as well
would result in double-counting. Therefore, only the truck-trips generated by a
commercial project itself will be subject to analysis. An exception to this rule is any
commercial project which is a regional draw or unique draw, and thus may cause the
redistribution of existing trips in a manner that will increase total existing VMT.
PROJECT IMPACTS
As stated in the Traffic and Circulation discussion, the operation of the proposed radio
tower would not result in generating daily trips as there will only be occasional trips for
maintenance; therefore, the project would not result in an increase in VMT. There is not
a residential, commercial or industrial energy use component of the proposed project.
The proposed project will not increase nor decrease greenhouse gas emissions as
compared to the baseline and will not result in any applicable significance threshold to
be exceeded; therefore, the climate change impact of the proposed project is
IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 requires the evaluation of significant irreversible
environmental changes, stating that “uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial
and continued phases of a proposed project may be irreversible since a large
commitment of these resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely.” This
section of the EIR evaluates whether the project would result in the irretrievable
commitment of resources, or would cause irreversible changes in the environment.
Construction of various project elements will require irretrievable commitments of a
variety of finite natural resources, including aggregates, petrochemicals and metals.
These commitments will occur both as direct and indirect impacts of the project. Direct
impacts include the consumption of fuel by the construction fleet and equipment, the
consumption of fuel for the occasional maintenance of the facility during operation, the
use of metals for the guy wires, tower, antennas, and equipment building and the use of
aggregates for the tower pad and anchor pads. Indirect impacts include the
consumption of fuel and other resources to produce the materials used in construction.
The project will also require the commitment of potentially renewable, but limited natural
resources such as lumber or other forest products.
The demand for both finite and renewable resources is expected to continue into the
future, whether this particular project is approved or denied. The site is designated for
agricultural uses and is surrounded by active agricultural uses such as farm crops and
cattle grazing. This project by its nature is not growth inducing and does not contribute
to cumulative growth. Even in absence of this particular project, the demand for
cumulative growth exists and growth will be achieved to the maximum extent that can
be supported by the market, and as land use restrictions will allow. That being the
9-19
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
case, denial of the project would not result in the conservation of finite or limited
resources – these resources would simply be used by other projects instead.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines), Section 15355
defines cumulative impacts as the following:
“Cumulative impacts” refers to two ore more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other
environmental impacts.
(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a
number of separate projects.
(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the
environment which results from the incremental impacts of the project when
added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
probably future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor
but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
Cumulative impacts as it pertains to land use, agricultural resources, public safety,
visual resources, and biological resources were found to be less than significant and are
discussed in their respective individual chapter.
The impact of the proposed project as it relates to traffic and circulation, air quality,
hydrology and drainage, geology and soils, water quality, exposure to hazardous
materials, noise, public services and climate change are were found to be less than
significant. The proposed project does not contribute to the degradation of the
environment as it relates to the above resources; therefore, the cumulative impacts of
the proposed project as it relates to these topics are considered less than significant.
9-20
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
10 BIBLIOGRAPHY
California Agricultural Aircraft Association (http://www.caaa.net/index.html).
California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
Farmland of Local Importance definition. Accessed 09 July 2012.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/Local_definitions_00.pdf
California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
Program Background. Accessed 09 July 2012.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/overview/Pages/background.aspx
California Department of Fish and Game, CNDDB Maps and Data. Accessed July 10
and July 11, 2012. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp
California Public Utilities Commission (1991), “Order Instituting Investigation on the
Commission’s Own Motion to Develop Policies and Procedures for Addressing
the Potential Health Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields of Utility Facilities”,
PUC I.91-01-012, filed January 15, 1991, San Francisco, California.
County of Sacramento, Community Development Department, Planning Division.
Sacramento County General Plan of 2005-2030, Amended November 9, 2011.
Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology, “Radio
Frequency Safety Frequently Asked Questions”.
http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html Last updated August 4, 2010.
Accessed May 3, 2012.
Federal Communications Commission (1996). Report and Order. ET Docket No. 9362. Washington, D.C.
Grimshaw, R. (July 12, 2012). Personal Communications.
Holtz, B. (June 14, 2012). Personal Communications.
Illinois Department of Agriculture website. “Aerial Pesticide Application Q and A”.
Accessed July 16, 2012.
http://www.agr.state.il.us/Environment/Pesticide/aerialap.html. Last updated July
16, 2012.
Jensen, J. Agricultural Commissioner, County of Sacramento. (May 16, 2012, July 13,
2012, and July 16, 2012). Personal Communications.
Stocker, R. (July 2, 2012). Personal Communications.
Thompson, D. Deputy Agricultural Commissioner, County of Sacramento (May 16,
2012). Personal Communications.
10-1
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
10 - Bibliography
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Program.
Memo dated September 14, 2000, Subject: Service Guidance on the Siting,
Construction, Operation and Decommissioning of Communication Towers.
Accessed July 13, 2012. Last updated April 11, 2012.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.ht
ml
United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office, Endangered Species. Accessed July 10 and July 11, 2012.
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species-lists_quadfinder.htm
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. Advisory
Circular 70/7460-1K, Change 2 to Obstruction Marking and Lighting. Effective
February 1, 2007.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (1992), “EMF In Your Environment”,
Report No. 402-R-92-008, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Washington, D.C.
10-2
PLNP2012-UPP-00035
Appendix A
A-1
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A - 10
A - 11
A - 12
A - 13
A - 14
A - 15
Appendix B
Bob Rosenberg, CCIM
INVESTNET, Inc
2020 Hurley Way, Suite 220, Sacramento, CA 95825
June 11, 2012
Subject: Swainson’s hawk surveys at the KXPR Radio Tower Project
Dear Mr. Rosenberg,
At your request, I conducted a survey for nesting Swainson’s hawks in the vicinity of the
proposed KXPR Radio Tower project is Sacramento County. The following is my brief
assessment of the site and the use of the area by nesting Swainson’s hawks based on site
visits conducted on April 20 and June 8, 2012.
Site Location
The project site is located approximately 800 feet northeast of Kiefer Boulevard and
approximately 0.75 miles north of State Route 16 near Sloughhouse, Sacramento County.
The tower site is just northwest of Deer Creek (Figure 1).
Site Description
The site and most of the surrounding area north of Deer Creek consist primarily of grazed
annual grasses. Cultivated farmland is the primary land use south of Deer Creek. Deer
Creek and an unnamed tributary extending north of the main channel support a narrow
but mature riparian woodland dominated by valley oak, cottonwood, and willow tree
species. Several ranch/farm structures occur immediately south of the proposed tower
base (Figure 1).
Project Description
The project consists of a 500-foot tower with three triangular faces of 42 inches each
supported by three sets of multiple guy cables extending to the south, northwest, and east.
The tower pad is between 3,500 and 4,000 square feet and will include a concrete tower
base, a metal building to house the transmitter, generator, and other related equipment.
The tower pad and guy anchors will be installed in grazed annual grassland. On set of
guy cables will cross the unnamed tributary to Deer Creek and will require removal of
several trees along the tributary.
3202 Spinning Rod Way, Sacramento, CA 95833
Office 916-921-2515 - Cell 916-607-8695
[email protected]
B-1
Survey Methods
Two separate surveys were conducted on April 20 and June 8. The surveys were
conducted by walking and inspected all tees capable of supporting a Swainson's hawk
nest within approximately 0.25 miles of the tower site. Observations of hawks and nest
sites were made using binoculars and a spotting scope.
Survey Results
Three active Swainson's hawk nest sites were located during the survey. Figure I
illushates the location of each active nest site. Nest number I is within approximately
200-feet of the tower base along the small unnamed tributary to Deer Creek. The nest is
in a willow tree (Plate 1).
Swainson's hawk nest number 2 is along the main stem of Deer Creek approximately
1,500 feet southwest of the tower site across Kiefer Road (Figure l). The nest is in a
valley oak tree (Plate 2).
Swainson's hawk nest number 3 is also along the main stem of Deer Creek approximately
I ,700 feet northeast of the project site (Figure I ). This nest is also in a valley oak tree
(Plate 3).
All
three nest sites were active at the time of the second survey (June 8). If they continue
to be active, fledging of young should occur by approximately late July to early August
and adults and young will begin fall migration by mid- to late-September. The nesting
territories will be unoccupied and not subject to disturbance effects between
approximately September 15 and March 15.
Please call (916-921-2515)
if you have any questions regarding the results of this survey.
B-1
Plate 1. Looking east from farm road toward Swainson’s hawk nest number 1 in the
background along the unnamed tributary of Deer Creek. Nest tree is just left of barn.
Plate 2. Looking southwest toward Swainson’s hawk nest number 2 (large tree in center of
photo) along Deer Creek west of Kiefer Boulevard.
B-2
Plate 3. Looking northeast along Deer Creek toward Swainson’s hawk nest number 3.
B-3
Appendix C
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Washington, D.C. 20240
In Reply Refer To:
FWSIFHC/DHCIBF A
Memorandum
To:
Regional Directors, Regions 1-7
From:
Director
Subject:
Service Guidance on the Siting, Construction, Operation and Decommissioning of
Communications Towers
lsI Jamie Rappaport Clark
Construction of communications towers (including radio, television, cellular, and microwave) in
the United States has been growing at an exponential rate, increasing at an estimated 6 percent to
8 percent annually. According to the Federal Communication Commission's 2000 Antenna
Structure Registry, the number oflighted towers greater than 199'feet above ground level
currently number over 45,000 and the total number of towers over 74,000. By 2003, all
television stations must be digital, adding potentially 1,000 new towers exceeding 1,000 feet
AGL.
The construction of new towers creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds,
especially some 350 species of night-migrating birds. Communications towers are estimated to
kill 4-5 million birds per year, which violates the spirit and the intent of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 50 designed to implement the MBTA.
Some of the species affected are also protected under the Endangered Species Act and Bald and
Golden Eagle Act.
Service personnel may become involved in the review of proposed tower sitings and/or in the
evaluation of tower impacts on migratory birds through National Environmental Policy Act
review; specifically, sections 1501.6, opportunity to be a cooperating agency, and 1503.4, duty to
comment on federally-licensed activities for agencies with jurisdiction by law, in this case the
MBTA, or because of special expertise. Also, the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act requires that any activity on Refuge lands be determined as compatible with
the Refuge system mission and the Refuge purpose(s). In addition, the Service is required by the
ESA to assist other Federal agencies in ensuring that any action they authorize, implement, or
fund will not jeopardize the continued existence of any federally endangered or threatened
species.
C-1
This is your future. Don't leave it blank. - Support the 2000 Census.
2
A Communication Tower Working Group composed of government agencies, industry, academic
researchers and NGO's has been formed to develop and implement a research protocol to
determine the best ways to construct and operate towers to prevent bird strikes. Until the
research study is completed, or until research efforts uncover significant new mitigation
measures, all Service personnel involved in the review of proposed tower sitings and/or the
evaluation of the impacts of towers on migratory birds should use the attached interim guidelines
when making recommendations to all companies, license applicants, or licensees proposing new
tower sitings. These guidelines were developed by Service personnel from research conducted in
several eastern, midwestern, and southern States, and have been refined through Regional
review. They are based on the best information available at this time, and are the most prudent
and effective measures for avoiding bird strikes at towers. We believe that they will provide
significant protection for migratory birds pending completion of the Working Group's
recommendations. As new information becomes available, the guidelines will be updated
accordingly.
Implementation of these guidelines by the communications industry is voluntary, and our
recommendations must be balanced with Federal Aviation Administration requirements and local
community concerns where necessary. Field offices have discretion in the use of these
guidelines on a case by case basis, and may also have additional recommendations to add which
are specific to their geographic area.
Also attached is a Tower Site Evaluation Form which may prove useful in evaluating proposed
towers and in streamlining the evaluation process. Copies may be provided to consultants or
tower companies who regularly submit requests for consultation, as well as to those who submit
individual requests that do not contain sufficient information to allow adequate evaluation. This
form is for discretionary use, and may be modified as necessary.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) prohibits the taking, killing, possession,
transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when
specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. While the Act has no provision for
allowing an unauthorized take, it must be recognized that some birds may be killed at structures
such as communications towers even if all reasonable measures to avoid it are implemented. The
Service's Division of Law Enforcement carries out its mission to protect migratory birds not only
through investigations and enforcement, but also through fostering relationships with individuals
and industries that proactively seek to eliminate their impacts on migratory birds. While it is not
possible under the Act to absolve individuals or companies from liability if they follow these
recommended guidelines, the Division of Law Enforcement and Department of Justice have used
enforcement and prosecutorial discretion in the past regarding individuals or companies who
have made good faith efforts to avoid the take of migratory birds.
Please ensure that all field personnel involved in review of FCC licensed communications tower
proposals receive copies of this memorandum. Questions regarding this issue should be directed
to Dr. Benjamin N. Tuggle, Chief, Division of Habitat Conservation, at (703)358-2161, or
C-1
3
Jon Andrew, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, at (703)358-1714. These
guidelines will be incorporated in a Director's Order and placed in the Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual at a future date.
Attachment
cc:
30 12-MIB-FWS/Directorate Reading File
3012-MIB-FWS/CCU Files
3245-MIB-FWS/AFHC Reading Files
840-ARLSQ-FWS/AF Files
400-ARLSQ-FWS/DHC Files
400-ARLSQ-FWS/DHC/BFA Files
400-ARLSQ-FWS/DHC/BFA Staff
520-ARLSQ-FWS/LE Files
634-ARLSQ-FWS/MBMO Files (Jon Andrew)
FWS/DHCIBFAJRWillis:bg:08/09/00:(703)358-2183
S:\DHC\BFA\WILLIS\COMTOW-2.POL
C-2
Attachment
Service Interim Guidelines For Recommendations On
Communications Tower Siting, Construction, Operation, and Decommissioning
1. Any company/applicant/licensee proposing to construct a new communications tower should
be strongly encouraged to collocate the communications equipment on an existing
communication tower or other structure (e.g., billboard, water tower, or building mount).
Depending on tower load factors, from 6 to 10 providers may collocate on an existing tower.
2. If collocation is not feasible and a new tower or towers are to be constructed, communications
service providers should be strongly encouraged to construct towers no more than 199 feet above
ground level, using construction techniques which do not require guy wires (e.g., use a lattice
structure, monopole, etc.). Such towers should be unlighted if Federal Aviation Administration
regulations permit.
3. If constructing multiple towers, providers should consider the cumulative impacts of all of
those towers to migratory birds and threatened and endangered species as well as the impacts of
each individual tower.
4. If at all possible, new towers should be sited within existing "antenna farms" (clusters of
towers). Towers should not be sited in or near wetlands, other known bird concentration areas
(e.g., State or Federal refuges, staging areas, rookeries), in known migratory or daily movement
flyways, or in habitat of threatened or endangered species. Towers should not be sited in areas
with a high incidence of fog, mist, and low ceilings.
5. If taller (> 199 feet AGL) towers requiring lights for aviation safety must be constructed, the
minimum amount of pilot warning and obstruction avoidance lighting required by the FAA
should be used. Unless otherwise required by the FAA, only white (preferable) or red strobe
lights should be used at night, and these should be the minimum number, minimum intensity,
and minimum number of flashes per minute (longest duration between flashes) allowable by the
FAA. The use of solid red or pulsating red warning lights at night should be avoided. Current
research indicates that solid or pulsating (beacon) red lights attract night-migrating birds at a
much higher rate than white strobe lights. Red strobe lights have not yet been studied.
6. Tower designs using guy wires for support which are proposed to be located in known raptor
or waterbird concentration areas or daily movement routes, or in major diurnal migratory bird
movement routes or stopover sites, should have daytime visual markers on the wires to prevent
collisions by these diurnally moving species. (For guidance on markers, see Avian Power Line
Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State
ofthe Art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.c., 78 pp, and Avian Power Line
Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1996. Suggested Practices/or Raptor Protection on Power
Lines. Edison Electric InstituteiRaptor Research Foundation, Washington, D. C; 128 pp.
Copies can be obtained via the Internet at http://www.eei.org/resources/pubcat/enviro/. or by
calling 1-800/334-5453).
C-3
7. Towers and appendant facilities should be sited, designed and constructed so as to avoid or
minimize habitat loss within and adjacent to the tower "footprint." However, a larger tower
footprint is preferable to the use of guy wires in construction. Road access and fencing should be
minimized to reduce or prevent habitat fragmentation and disturbance, and to reduce above
ground obstacles to birds in flight.
8. If significant numbers of breeding, feeding, or roosting birds are known to habitually use the
proposed tower construction area, relocation to an alternate site should be recommended. If this
is not an option, seasonal restrictions on construction may be advisable in order to avoid
disturbance during periods of high bird activity.
9. In order to reduce the number of towers needed in the future, providers should be encouraged
to design new towers structurally and electrically to accommodate the applicant/licensee's
antennas and comparable antennas for at least two additional users (minimum of three users for
each tower structure), unless this design would require the addition of lights or guy wires to an
otherwise unlighted and/or unguyed tower.
10. Security lighting for on-ground facilities and equipment should be down-shielded to keep
light within the boundaries of the site.
11. If a tower is constructed or proposed for construction, Service personnel or researchers from
the Communication Tower Working Group should be allowed access to the site to evaluate bird
use, conduct dead-bird searches, to place net catchments below the towers but above the ground,
and to place radar, Global Positioning System, infrared, thermal imagery, and acoustical
monitoring equipment as necessary to assess and verify bird movements and to gain information
on the impacts of various tower sizes, configurations, and lighting systems.
12. Towers no longer in use or determined to be obsolete should be removed within 12 months
of cessation of use.
In order to obtain information on the extent to which these guidelines are being implemented,
and to identify any recurring problems with their implementation which may necessitate
modifications, letters provided in response to requests for evaluation of proposed towers should
contain the following request:
"In order to obtain information on the usefulness of these guidelines in preventing bird
strikes, and to identify any recurring problems with their implementation which may
necessitate modifications, please advise us of the final location and specifications of the
proposed tower, and which of the measures recommended for the protection of migratory
birds were implemented. If any of the recommended measures can not be implemented,
please explain why they were not feasible."
C-4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EIR PREPARERS
Catherine Hack, Environmental Coordinator
Tim Hawkins, Assistant Environmental Coordinator
Todd Smith, Division Manager
Michelle Nagao, Environmental Analyst
SUPPORT STAFF
Linda Johnston, Administrative Services Officer II
Justin Maulit, Office Assistant II
EIR CONSULTANTS
Sycamore Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Estep Environmental Consulting
PAR Environmental Services, Inc.
APPLICANT
Capital Public Radio, Inc.

KXPR RADIO TOWER USE PERMIT

Transcription

Similar documents

30 St Mary Axe - Foster + Partners

W10 SOLIES 2014.cdr - Independent Energy Solutions Corp.

2.8 Mo

updates - Favelle Favco

Westburry Tower 1 - Business Bay For Sale c79900

print to pdf

Miglin-Beitler Skyneedle Fact Sheet

WELCOME TO CAESARS PALACE

Map 8c Area from which Beckford`s Tower is Visible (Landmark 2)

Beeline Dragstrip