KIEFER BUFFER LANDS LAND USE AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS … Use Feasibility... · 2015-07-13 · This Land Use Feasibility Analysis (LUFA) process was designed, where possible, to identify

KIEFER BUFFER LANDS

LAND USE AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for:

Sacramento County, Waste Management and Recycling Department

Prepared by:

March 2008

This report was printed on recycled paper.

Sacramento County Waste Management and Recycling Department March 2008

Kiefer Buffer Lands LUFA Final Report Page i of vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

LAND USE MATRICES 2 CONCLUSIONS 2 RECOMMENDATIONS 3

PART I – INTRODUCTION 4

BACKGROUND 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 6 PRIMARY GOALS OF THE LUFA PROCESS 6 PUBLIC PROCESS 7 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 7 PUBLIC OUTREACH 7 INTRA-COUNTY AND NEIGHBORING GOVERNMENT COORDINATION 8 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 8 RESOURCE CAPTURE, RECYCLING AND REUSE 8 PUBLIC POLICY AND PLANNING CONCEPTS 9 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS 10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 10 PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ADDITIONAL FEASIBLE OPPORTUNITIES 11

PART II – THE MATRICES AND DISCUSSION OF THE MATRICES 18

WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING OPPORTUNITIES 24 OPPORTUNITY 1: WASTE AND RECYCLING OPERATIONS 24 OPPORTUNITY 2: ADVANCED RECYCLING INDUSTRIES 24 OPPORTUNITY 3: ENERGY PRODUCTION, ENERGY USES, AND TRANSPORTATION FUELS 25 OPPORTUNITY 4: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 26 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 27 OPPORTUNITY 5: LANDFILL-ONLY PRESERVE 27 OPPORTUNITY 6: COUNTY PROJECT PRESERVE 28 OPPORTUNITY 7: COMMERCIAL MITIGATION BANKING 29 OPPORTUNITY 8: SOUTH SACRAMENTO HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN PRESERVE LANDS 29 OPPORTUNITY 9: SAFE HARBOR AGREEMENTS 30 LAND USE OPPORTUNITIES 31 OPPORTUNITY 10: AG-ENTERPRISE (AGRITOURISM, FARM AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT SHOWCASES) 31 OPPORTUNITY 11: POTENTIAL RECREATIONAL AND RESORT LAND USES 32 OPPORTUNITY 12: NEW PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT 33


Kiefer Buffer Lands LUFA Final Report Page ii of vi

OPPORTUNITY 13: COUNTY GROUND LEASES 34 LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 36 LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 1: ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT ZONES (EDZ) 36 LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 2: LAYERING LAND USES AND VALUES 37 LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 3: COLLABORATIVE PLANNING AND POTENTIAL

PARTNERSHIPS 38

PART III – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 39

CONCLUSIONS 39 LAND USES THAT WARRANT FURTHER CONSIDERATION 39 COMPATIBLE AND UNIFIED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES 40 LAND USE DEVELOPMENT TIMING BASED ON MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY RIPENESS 41 RECOMMENDATIONS 41 RECOMMENDATION 1 – ESTABLISH AN INFORMATION SHARING PROGRAM 41 RECOMMENDATION 2 – DEVELOP A BUFFER LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS 42 RECOMMENDATION 3 – BEGIN ENTITLEMENT PROCESS: LAND USE PLAN, CEQA ANALYSIS AND PERMITTING 42 RECOMMENDATION 4 – ESTABLISH REGULAR FIVE -YEAR BUFFER LAND PLAN UPDATE PROCESS 43

APPENDIX A TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 1 RESOURCE SECTION HIGHLIGHTS 2 PUBLIC POLICY AND PLANNING CONCEPTS 2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3 RESOURCE CAPTURE, RECYCLING AND REUSE 3 PRELIMINARY ECONOMIC EVALUATION 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS 4 OVERVIEW 12 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING 12 EXISTING SETTING 13 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING OPPORTUNITIES 21 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING CONSTRAINTS 26 PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC INPUT INTO THE LUFA PLANNING PROCESS 29 PUBLIC POLICY SETTING 29 PLANNING CONCEPT OPPORTUNITIES 32 PUBLIC POLICY CONSTRAINTS 34 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 35 BIOLOGICAL SETTING 35 BIOLOGICAL LAND USE OPPORTUNITIES 37 BIOLOGICAL LAND USE CONSTRAINTS 41


Kiefer Buffer Lands LUFA Final Report Page iii of vi

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 44 ECONOMIC SETTING 44 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES 50 ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS 56 REFERENCES AND PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS 57

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP COMMENTS 1

KIEFER BUFFER LANDS PUBLIC WORKSHOP COMMENTS #1 - OCTOBER 16, 2007 1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1 PUBLIC POLICY 1 ECONOMIC RESOURCES 2 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ECO INDUSTRIAL 2 KIEFER BUFFER LANDS PUBLIC WORKSHOP COMMENTS #2 - NOVEMBER 13, 2007 4 WASTE MANAGEMENT- RESOURCE RECOVERY 4 BIOLOGY 4 ECONOMICS- LAND USE 5

APPENDIX C BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1

SWAINSON’S HAWK FORAGING HABITAT 1 SWAINSON’S HAWK NESTING HABITAT 2 VERNAL POOL HABITAT 2 SACRAMENTO ORCUTT GRASS 3 BOGGS LAKE HEDGE-HYSSOP 3 BURROWING OWL NESTING HABITAT 3 VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONGHORN BEETLE HABITAT 4 OPEN WATER/WETLAND HABITAT 4 RIPARIAN HABITAT 4


Kiefer Buffer Lands LUFA Final Report Page iv of vi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 LUFA RESOURCES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CONSTRAINTS 16 TABLE 2 THE MATRIX OF LAND USE FEASIBILITY 20 TABLE APPENDIX A – 1 LUFA RESOURCES, OPPORTUNTIES, AND CONSTRAINTS A - 6 TABLE APPENDIX A - 2 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS A- 13 TABLE APPENDIX A – 3 REGIONAL SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING AND PROCESSING FACILITIES A - 18 TABLE APPENDIX A – 4 BUFFER LAND HABITAT ACREAGE SUITABLE FOR SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

MTIGATION A - 38 TABLE APPENDIX A – 5 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH HABITAT

PRESERVATION LAND USE OPTIONS A - 43 TABLE APPENDIX A - 6 2007 POPULATION AND HOUSING ESTIMATES FOR THE SITE AREA A - 45 TABLE APPENDIX A - 7 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL GROWTH [1] A - 47 TABLE APPENDIX A – 8 EXISTING AG-ENTERPRISE USES A - 48 TABLE APPENDIX A – 9 EXISTING RECREATION AND RESORT USES A - 49

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION 5 FIGURE 2 LUFA PLANNING BOUNDARIES 12 FIGURE 3 PARCELS WITHIN AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE LANDFILL BUFFER 13 FIGURE 4 WATER FEATURES 14 FIGURE 5 COVER TYPES 15


Kiefer Buffer Lands LUFA Final Report Page v of vi

ACRONYMS AND TERMS

AG-80 Sacramento County General Plan designation: 80 Acre Agriculture Land Use

Board Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

County Sacramento County

CO Carbon Monoxide

C&D Construction and Demolition

DWMR Sacramento County Department of Waste Management & Recycling

ESP Environmental Stewardship & Planning, Inc.

EDZ Economic Development Zone

IWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board

LFG Landfill Gas

LUFA Land Use Feasibility Analysis

LNG/CNG Liquefied Natural Gas/Compressed Natural Gas

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

MRF Material Recovery Facility

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in Diameter

R&D Research and Development

RMDZ Recycling Market Development Zones

SSHCP South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan

USB Urban Services Boundaries


Kiefer Buffer Lands LUFA Final Report Page vi of vi

LIST OF PREPARERS

County of Sacramento, Department of Waste Management and Recycling

Paul Philleo, Acting Director

Dave Ghirardelli, Solid Waste Planner

Environmental Stewardship and Planning, Inc. (ESP)

Steve Peterson, AICP, Principal

Krysty Emery, Associate

Amanda Rose, Senior Associate

John Taylor, Senior Associate

The HLA Group

Jeffrey T. Craft. Principal Landscape Architect & Planner

Zachary Miller, Assistant Planner

SCS Engineers

Patrick Sullivan. REA CPP, Vice President

Michelle Leonard, Vice President

Padre Associates, Inc.

Richard Meredith, Senior Biologist

Sarah Powell, Biologist

Economic & Planning Systems

Jamie Gomes, Principal

Ashley Leach, Associate MMC Communications

Michele McCormick, Principal

Patti Ransdell, Public Outreach Manager

Kiefer Buffer Lands LUFA Administrative Draft Report Page 1 of 43

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Kiefer landfill is located approximately 15 miles southeast of the City of Sacramento at the intersection of Kiefer Boulevard and Grant Line Road, approximately one mile from the community of Sloughhouse and immediately adjacent to the southeastern boundary of the City of Rancho Cordova. The landfill began accepting waste in 1967 and currently accepts approximately 700,000 tons of waste annually, an amount that is increasing annually. Through adoption of the 1993 General Plan, the County established a 2,000-foot “buffer land” zone around the Kiefer Landfill to identify a transitional area between landfill operations and surrounding land uses.

During the years subsequent to adoption of the 1993 General Plan, the County along with other agencies having a direct bearing on the Kiefer Landfill and related county property holdings, have made decisions including, but not limited to:

1. The approval and permitting for an expanded landfill in 1998 to accommodate the growth in the regions solid waste,

2. The County’s acquisition of holdings within and adjacent to the landfill, and within and outside the buffer, which have grown to approximately 3,500 acres of property.

3. The incorporation of the City of Rancho Cordova, whose adopted General Plan outlines residential development immediately west of the Kiefer Landfill, and

4. The preparation of the County’s Draft General Plan Update in May 2007 which identified the Jackson Highway Corridor and the Grant Line East Area as important future growth areas and implemented the Jackson Visioning Process to assure that other regional planning efforts including Community Plans, Specific Plans, and Comprehensive Plans, are consistent with the vision plan resulting from the Jackson Visioning Study Area effort.

Recognizing that the area’s increasing urbanization places pressure on the ability of the Kiefer Landfill to continue as the County’s principal municipal solid waste disposal facility, the County’s Department of Waste Management & Recycling (DWMR) recommended that the County analyze the feasibility of an array of potential uses of the buffer lands. This analysis would consider potential land uses and management strategies for County-owned lands in the context of current and updated General Plan policies and goals, market conditions, and the possible development of intensive land uses in the vicinity of the Kiefer Landfill

In 2007, DWMR staff and consultants developed a program to identify and evaluate a range of land uses that could benefit the operation of the County’s waste management and recycling mission and respond to the land use goals and policies articulated in the Sacramento County General Plan. This Land Use Feasibility Analysis (LUFA) process was designed, where possible, to identify land uses that do not conflict with the current and future uses of adjacent lands owned and managed by private landowners.

In order to understand the range of opportunities available to the County, DWMR and the LUFA team conducted a review of technical and planning information available for the Kiefer facility and the County’s adjacent land holdings. This technical review focused on landfill and resource recovery operations at the Kiefer Landfill, the biological resources that occur or could occur in undeveloped areas, the existing land use policy framework that controls these areas and the current and potential economic values of current and future land uses. The LUFA report was the result of input from the Board of Supervisors at its September 25, 2007 Board meeting, several representatives of stakeholder groups/agencies/property owners at individual meetings and community members via two public outreach meetings conducted at the Cosumnes Elementary School in October and November 2007.


Kiefer Buffer Lands LUFA Final Report Page 2 of 43

LAND USE MATRICES

This LUFA Report provides an analysis of 13 different potential land uses and 3 implementation strategies for the lands comprising the Buffer Lands, including those owned by the County as well as privately owned lands. These potential land uses are graphically portrayed through four matrices with an accompanying detailed narrative discussion evaluating the feasibility of proposed land uses for the four different land planning categories listed below. The four planning categories of land are:

• Category 1 - County-owned lands within the 2,000 foot buffer extending from the footprint of the permitted landfill;

• Category 2 - Privately-owned lands within the 2,000 foot buffer extending from the footprint of the permitted landfill;

• Category 3 - County-owned lands beyond and immediately adjacent to the 2,000 foot buffer; • Category 4 - Privately-owned lands beyond and immediately adjacent to the 2,000 foot buffer.

In addition, for each of the land uses evaluated for each land planning category, feasibility was evaluated with respect to three time periods. The time periods in which land use feasibility were evaluated include:

• Short- Term, expected to occur within the next 3 years from 2007 – 2010, • Mid-Term, expected to occur in the next 20 Years between (i.e. between 2010-2030), and • Long-Term, expected to occur in the next 40-60 years and beyond.

Further, each potential land use, or opportunity, is evaluated against the following criteria:

• The existence of potential environmental constraints • The likelihood of public acceptance for the particular land use • Consistency of the potential land use with the County’s General Plan and Zoning policies • Whether any other potential legislative or regulatory constraints exist • Identifiable economic constraints

CONCLUSIONS

This Report identifies potentially feasible land uses for the lands comprising the buffer lands and what, if any, policy considerations or actions will have to be taken in order to pursue those alternative land uses. The primary planning concepts suggested by this LUFA report recommend that the County of Sacramento consider a unique, entrepreneurial approach to the evaluation of the buffer land areas. As the potential developer, or development partner, for different areas within the buffer lands, the County has the opportunity to enhance a regional public works asset, and potentially develop new industrial and recreational uses that could meet the conditional function of the buffer and also generate an ongoing revenue stream.

As detailed in this Report, the analysis has concluded that:

• There are land use options that warrant further consideration • There are compatible and unified land use development opportunities, and • Land use development timing is based on market and technology ripeness.



RECOMMENDATIONS

The LUFA process has identified feasible land uses that address the County’s land use goals, as defined by the General Plan, and other current waste reduction and reuse initiatives. Based on this evaluation and public input, should any of the land uses warrant further consideration by the Board, the following recommendations have been developed and detailed to a greater extent in the Report, to foster and guide that process:

1. Establish an information sharing process with neighboring property owners, 2. Develop a buffer land use planning process, 3. Commence Entitlement Process and Environmental Review for the Buffer Plan Area, and 4. Establish regular 5-year updates to the buffer lands land use plan.



PART I – INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

The Sacramento County Department of Waste Management & Recycling (DWMR) is responsible for maintaining a waste management system for residents and businesses in the unincorporated area. Residents in the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County (the County) generate approximately 700,000 tons of waste annually, an amount that is increasing annually. Though new waste management strategies are beginning to affect the way in which waste is disposed of and processed, the amount of waste and recycling that is generated and requires processing is not expected to change in the foreseeable future; therefore, local jurisdictions must proactively plan for the future management of waste disposal and recycling opportunities, which should include innovative and efficient uses of landfill lands to maximize the potential of the land.

In carrying out its responsibility to maintain a waste system for residents and businesses of the unincorporated area, the County is continually assessing its existing resources in order to best utilize those resources for future uses.

The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors (the Board) established a 2,000-foot “buffer land” zone around the Kiefer Landfill to identify a transitional area between landfill operations and surrounding land uses in the 1993 General Plan development process (see Figure 1). Since that time, the County has become owner of over half of the buffer lands and additional acreage surrounding the landfill. In 2007, the County retained a consultant team led by Environmental Stewardship & Planning, Inc. (ESP) to develop a program to identify and evaluate a range of beneficial land uses that could benefit the operation of the County’s waste management and recycling mission and respond to the land use goals and policies of the Sacramento County General Plan. This Land Use Feasibility Analysis (LUFA) process was designed to, where possible, identify land uses that do not conflict with the current and future uses of adjacent lands owned and managed by private landowners.

In order to understand the range of opportunities available to the County, DWMR and the LUFA team conducted a review of technical and planning information available for the Kiefer facility and the County’s adjacent land holdings. This technical review focused on landfill and resource recovery operations at the Kiefer Landfill, the biological resources that occur or could occur in undeveloped areas, the existing land use policy framework that controls these areas, and the current and potential economic values of current and future land uses.

The Acting Director of DWMR and members of the LUFA team conducted interviews with County Supervisors and their staff members, adjacent landowners, and representatives of other County agencies and the City of Rancho Cordova to identify concerns and ideas about the current and future uses of the buffer lands. The LUFA team also conducted two workshops, on October 16, 2007 and November 13, 2007, to gain an understanding of community concerns and ideas regarding the uses of the buffer lands. Comments received at these workshops are summarized in Appendix B, below.

Jackson Highway

Buffer Zone(private land)

LEGEND

Buffer Zone(county land)

N

Deer Creek

RanchoCordova

80

5

50US

5

50US

50US

CALIFORNI

16

CALIFORNI

99

CALIFORNIA

99

Jackson Hwy

Su

nrise

Blv

d

Gra

nt Lin

e Rd

Gra

nt

Lin

e R

d

Kiefer

ProjectSite

FairOaksCarmichael

Jackson

White Rock Rd

Sacramento

Hwy

Blvd

Sloughhouse

RanchoMurieta

N

Figure 1 - Project Location

Gra

nt Lin

e Rd

Kiefer Blvd

KIEFERLANDFILL



PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Kiefer landfill is located approximately 15 miles southeast of the City of Sacramento at the intersection of Kiefer Boulevard and Grant Line Road, approximately one mile from the community of Sloughhouse. The Kiefer landfill site is approximately 1,084 acres and the actual landfill is permitted to cover 660 acres and be developed to a height of 325 feet, providing Sacramento County with 117.9 million cubic yards of total landfill capacity (DERA 1998 FEIR).

The landfill began accepting waste in 1967. Kiefer Landfill is a Class III disposal site and receives municipal solid wastes, commercial wastes, non-hazardous industrial wastes, and construction debris. The Kiefer landfill currently provides recycling of green (wood/yard) waste, e-waste (computers and other electronic equipment), appliances (e.g., refrigerators, washing machines, water heaters) and vehicle tires. Hazardous waste and liquids are not accepted. Other County initiatives that occur within the Kiefer facility include the generation of electricity by cogeneration plants and an onsite landfill site vernal pool and sensitive plant preserve. Kiefer Landfill’s current operating permit indicates and “estimated closure year” of 2035. Based on the current waste stream projections and remaining disposal capacity, Kiefer Landfill offers potential waste disposal capacity into the year 2065. Post-closure intended use of the site is as non-irrigated open space, consistent with the surrounding land use and zoning.

The Kiefer landfill is located within Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 126-090-01, 02, 16, 17, 18, 19, 2 and 2 with current (i.e., 1993 General Plan) land use designations defined as Public and Quasi-Public and zoning defined as Agricultural, 80-acre minimum parcel size (AG-80).

Although the 1998 Kiefer Landfill Expansion Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report identified significant impacts for which there were feasible mitigation measures available, some impacts remained significant and unavoidable. The Board adopted a statement of overriding consideration that acknowledged the continued visual impacts (related to the dominant view of the form, height and mass from the landfill) and regionally significant and unavoidable impacts related to landfill gas emissions, landfill gas flaring, equipment exhaust emissions such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (less than 10 microns in diameter [PM10]), and transport vehicle emissions of pollutants (CO, NOx, reactive organic gases and PM10) that occur at and adjacent to the Kiefer facility. Accordingly, the DWMR has worked for over 14 years to protect both the landfill and the neighboring properties from land use conflicts by securing “buffer” lands.

The County currently owns a majority of the buffer lands and has been working on an ongoing basis to acquire additional private property on a “willing seller” basis. Any future development within the 2,000-foot buffer area (by the County or private property owner) will be conducted in accordance with applicable public policies, including current and future land use and zoning designations of the County of Sacramento and in the case of lands located northwest of Grant Line Road, in the City of Rancho Cordova.

PRIMARY GOALS OF THE LUFA PROCESS

The purpose of the LUFA is to understand the extent of the feasible opportunities and potential limitations of the County’s future use of the buffer lands area to help guide the County in decisions regarding such uses. The LUFA identifies and evaluates a range of beneficial land uses that could promote the operation of the County’s waste management and recycling mission and respond to the land use goals and policies of the Sacramento County General Plan. Accordingly, this report describes existing resources, opportunities, and constraints associated with the project area.



The County’s primary goals of the LUFA Process are to undertake a review of four categories of land ownership and proximity to the Kiefer Landfill, as defined by DWMR as the primary project study area, and include:

• Category 1 - County-owned lands in the 2,000 foot buffer extending from the footprint of the permitted landfill;

• Category 2 - Privately-owned lands in the 2,000 foot buffer extending from the footprint of the permitted landfill;

• Category 3 - County-owned lands beyond and immediately adjacent to the 2,000 foot buffer; • Category 4 - Privately-owned lands beyond and immediately adjacent to the 2,000 foot buffer

Based on the assumption that the County has a level of responsibility as asset manager to put its land assets to the highest and best use on behalf of the County’s citizens, this project serves to scope out land use opportunities that could be explored further for development in the future. Therefore, the LUFA team has worked to identify different land use opportunities and constraints within each category, and analyzed whether the opportunities could be feasible in the near-term or long-term.

PUBLIC PROCESS

DWMR initiated the LUFA process with the Board, individual neighboring property owners and the Sloughhouse community to gain direction, opinions, concerns and insights in the feasibility analysis process.

Board of Supervisors

At the September 25, 2007 Board meeting, Mr. Paul Philleo, Acting Director of DWMR, outlined the scope and detail of the Buffer Lands Feasibility Analysis in a presentation to the Board. The presentation included an update of the progress of the study to date. County Supervisors were briefed on the overall project methodology, and their input was solicited to assist in the development of a focused approach to public outreach and analysis of public policy. The Board confirmed the approach of providing an analysis of the range of potential benefits and uses of the buffer lands, and directed the study to consider existing resources and the opportunities and limitations of the buffer as it relates to the existing waste disposal facility. Of particular concern was the buffer delineation as mapped, with public comments directing a request to review the validity of the buffer as preliminarily illustrated for study purposes. The Board reiterated the importance of the public outreach process as a component of the study, directing coordination between the consultant team, County staff, public agencies and private landowners. DWMR and the LUFA consultant team also coordinated with Board members by providing briefings prior to the September 25th session.

Public Outreach

In August and September 2007, DWMR staff and the LUFA consultant team conducted eight meetings with project stakeholders, including neighboring property owners, land managers and land use consultants. A narrative summary of the comments received at the public outreach meetings is appended to the Technical Memorandum (Appendix A) as Summary of Workshop Comments Appendix B. These informal sessions with stakeholders provided an opportunity to share the DWMR’s interest in developing an analysis of feasible land uses that could support and enhance the Kiefer facility prior to the initiation of the LUFA process and provide interested parties with the opportunity to provide input regarding DWMR’s development of the feasibility analysis.

Interviewees expressed concern regarding the possible offsite impacts of different (non-grazing) land uses and the possible impacts of increased vehicle traffic on the quality of life and the preservation of



Sloughhouse-area agriculture. Another key concern was the potential for public access projects to create trespass impacts on private lands.

Another key topic was the creation of a “level playing field” for private landowners who might be interested in developing land uses in and adjacent to the buffer land. Area residents stated that they should have the same competitive opportunity as the County for the development and/or recruitment of new, landfill-compatible land uses, because of the County’s ability to rapidly approve and permit projects.

Intra-County and Neighboring Government Coordination

DWMR and the LUFA consultant team consulted with County Director of Planning and Community Development Robert Sherry and his staff to ensure that the LUFA process was developed with a clear understanding of the County General Plan Update Process, the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan and the Jackson Highway Visioning and Public Outreach Program initiatives that are currently underway.

DWMR and the LUFA consultant team also consulted with the Planning Director, Mr. Paul Junker, and Assistant City Manager, Mr. Joe Chinn, of the City of Rancho Cordova at the beginning of the LUFA process to provide information on the feasibility analysis process and continued opportunities to coordinate with DWMR.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Because the purpose of the LUFA is to understand the extent of the feasible opportunities and potential limitations of the County’s future use of the buffer lands area, a technical analysis evaluated the existing resources, opportunities, and constraints associated with the Kiefer buffer lands. This information serves as both the planning context and setting for the process of identifying feasible land use alternatives for the Kiefer Landfill’s buffer areas. The technical analysis details the setting, utilization opportunities, and constraints for each resource area presented within this document as Appendix A, Technical Memorandum. The highlights of this technical analysis are presented in the following summary discussion.

Resource Capture, Recycling and Reuse

The Kiefer facility is a primary disposal location for the County and will remain the key element of the County’s waste diversion and disposal strategy. The availability of a wide range of diverted waste materials offers many opportunities for the recycling and reuse of materials delivered to the Kiefer facility. The County could implement certain recycling and resource recovery options, some of which are already conducted on-site (e.g. green waste processing).

Resource recovery industries could be enhanced and incubated by a combination of public/private partnerships. Development of such landfill-dependent light industries would likely require a County commitment to develop economic and tax incentives to recruit and retain facility development partners. One mechanism that could be used would be the development of “opportunity zones” on suitable County lands and lands of willing private landowners. Policy and infrastructure support could foster the development of sustainable practices and industries that capitalize on landfill–associated products such as methane and diverted waste streams. Potential use of refined landfill-associated products would present an opportunity for complementary industries to be located in close proximity while creating an “eco-industrial” business park.



Key Opportunities: Potential waste stream utilization opportunities include state of the art recycling of traditional recyclables (e.g., plastic, paper and aluminum), construction and demolition materials, materials mixed with waste, or green waste (compost). Other opportunities include the development of energy production including landfill gas to energy projects, or natural gas transportation fueling stations. The transformation of waste into usable, salable products could offer an economic benefit to the County.

Enhanced resource capture, recycling and reuse activities would reduce the County’s contributions to global climate change impacts to a measurable degree (i.e., carbon footprint).

The buffer lands may also provide an opportunity to develop solar energy capture and distribution facilities. The buffer lands offer a large expanse of south-facing land that could serve as a solar energy plant that would supplement other existing and future energy developments at the Kiefer site.

Key Constraints: The absence of required land use policies (described above) and economic incentives constrain the development of landfill-dependent activities in the buffer lands. A unified development strategy that includes land use entitlements, facility performance standards, economic incentives and environmental impact analyses and permits would be needed to plan and develop these uses. Additionally, any developments would need to be developed in a sustainable, self-sufficient manner, potentially without connectivity to urban services such as water and sewer, as some of the buffer land area is outside the County’s Urban Services Boundary (USB).

Public Policy and Planning Concepts

The County currently owns a majority of the buffer lands and has been working on an ongoing basis to acquire additional private property on a “willing seller” basis. Any future development within the 2,000-foot buffer area (by the County or a private property owner) will be conducted in accordance with applicable public policies, including current and future land use and zoning designations of the County of Sacramento, and in the case of lands located northwest of Grant Line Road, in the City of Rancho Cordova (see Figure 2).

The primary planning concepts suggested by the LUFA team recommend that the County of Sacramento consider a unique, entrepreneurial approach to the evaluation of the buffer lands areas. As the potential developer or development partner for different areas within the buffer lands, DWMR has the opportunity to enhance a regional public works asset and potentially develop new, compatible land uses that could achieve the “buffer” function and also generate an ongoing revenue stream. These possible land uses, such as resource recovery and reuse industries are not only compatible with DWMR’s recycling and waste management mission but also with the goals and policies of the Sacramento County General Plan.

Any development of the buffer lands must be respectful to the rights and land use goals of adjacent property owners. See Figure 3 for an ownership overview of the buffer lands and adjacent properties. Development opportunities envisioned for the buffer lands should also be made available to interested, adjacent property owners to strengthen the potential for landfill-compatible land uses and industries to develop.



Key Opportunities: The County has the opportunity to develop lands in collaboration with surrounding landowners and has the opportunity to develop planning processes that would regularly involve the surrounding owners in planning opportunities. By combining opportunities such as private market opportunities with public assets, the County has the opportunity to develop a planning area modeled after an airport development plan, where a public asset is created using public land and policies, and private development opportunities provide economic growth.

Public Comments and Concerns

Through the course of developing this analysis, public input has been gathered to identify local concerns regarding the current and future utilization of buffer lands areas. Input was gathered in two public workshops and in a series of interviews with local landowners, neighbors and interested parties. The two workshops were held on October 16 and November 13, 2007 at the Consumnes River Elementary School. Comments received during these sessions are summarized below.

A number of comments were raised with regards to private landowner rights, water quality in the area as impacted by the landfill, energy needs, and concerns about noise and litter. A summary of these comments is provided in Appendix B, below.

Key Opportunities: Various local neighbors were interested in some of the following opportunities:

• Energy development, • Planning Forums and Partnerships with the County, and • Additional groundwater monitoring wells.

Key Constraints: Local landowners want to ensure they are allowed the same development opportunities as the County. Also, local citizens remained concerned about the groundwater pollution and litter related to the landfill.

Biological Resources

Prior investigations have evaluated the buffer lands for their utility as potential environmental impact mitigation sites (Wildlands, Inc., 2006). The LUFA team verified the potential future use. DWMR has developed a biological mitigation area to compensate for approved landfill development, and mitigation sites are being developed in areas adjacent to the Kiefer facility.

The buffer land area has great potential for habitat restoration and enhancement. The presence of uplands and low-value grasslands, coupled with the potential water supply provided by existing treatment facilities, provides a wide range of habitat enhancement options (see Figures 4 and 5). For the purposes of this evaluation, conflicts with existing or planned uses are considered constraints of potential development opportunities.

Key Opportunities: Habitat Mitigation, with a unique opportunity to develop water-dependent habitats such as marsh, pond and open water areas.

Key Constraints: Current competition for habitat compensation credits and a downturn in area development may depress the monetary value of credits in the short-term. Also, it is unclear what agency



might be tasked with the development of these resources or who should receive the benefits of the presentation lands (e.g., be it County departments, for-profit mitigation agencies or non-governmental agencies).

Preliminary Economic Evaluation of Additional Feasible Opportunities

The enhancement of existing agricultural uses and the development of waste-dependent uses could serve as an economic engine for the buffer lands. The development of new or expanded land uses must maintain respect for existing agricultural operations and practices on the adjacent lands. The buffer lands and the Highway 16 corridor could provide an opportunity to develop and link new and existing recreational and resort facilities.

Key Opportunities: Economic opportunities reviewed as a part of the Technical Memorandum included agricultural and recreation opportunities, as well as resorts and regional parks. A detailed review of all land use opportunities is provided within the matrix discussion of this document.

Key Constraints: Key economic constraints include land use restrictions imposed by the County USB, governance issues for areas within the City of Rancho Cordova, flood control issues within the Deer Creek flood zone, existing County leases on buffer lands, site conditions or soil quality and potential incompatibility of proposed land uses with existing, adjacent land uses.



TABLE 1 LUFA RESOURCES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CONSTRAINTS

Resources and Existing Features

Opportunities Constraints

Kiefer Waste Management and Recycling Operations

Regional disposal location

Green waste processing

Tire recycling

Landfill Gas to Energy

Appliance recycling

Electronic Waste Recycling

Construction and Demolition Recycling

Waste and recycling operations • Mixed waste material recovery facility • Green waste processing or composting • Construction and demolition debris recycling • Recycled aggregate processing

Advanced recycling industries • Recycled products manufacturing • Recycled asphalt or cement plant • LEED2-Ready Construction Material

Recycling Energy Production, Energy uses, and Transportation fuels • Anaerobic digestion • Alternative Non Burn Conversion

Technologies • Biomass facility or landfill to energy • Solar energy development • Bio-reactor landfill options for future cells • Liquefied or compressed natural gas

(LNG/CNG) fueling facility Research and Development • Eco-Industrial research and development • Economic enterprise zone

• Fugitive dust emissions • Noise • LFG emissions • LFG migration • Groundwater impacts • Surface water impacts • Diesel emissions • Litter and Vectors • Odors • Traffic • Aesthetics

Public Policy County General Plan Zoning

Adjacent City Governments

Regional Growth

• County as Public Asset Manager, Business Catalyst and Developer

• Collaborative Planning and Potential Partnerships

• “Layering” Land Uses and Values

• Competition or conflict with adjacent or future onsite uses

• Existing and proposed General Plan policies limit the range of development activities that may be considered within buffer areas

2 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a “green building” rating system developed and administered by the U.S. Green Building Council.



TABLE 1 LUFA RESOURCES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CONSTRAINTS



Biological Resources Wildlife Habitat

Swainson’s Hawk Habitat

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle

Vernal Pool Habitat

Deer Creek Corridor

Riparian Habitat and Water Resources

• Develop Habitat to serve future DWMR facilities

• Develop Habitat to serve future County of Sacramento Projects

• Develop Commercial Mitigation Bank • Develop Habitat as part of the South

Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan project


• Competition with other habitat banking projects in the vicinity

Economic Davis Ranch Farmer Market

Dairyland Seed Company

Murieta Equestrian Center

Sloughhouse Inn

Rancho Murieta Lakes

Agricultural Enterprises

• Expanded farmers market • Seasonal crop celebrations and product

tasting events and venues • Agricultural genome repository to preserve

heirloom crops • Revitalize Sloughhouse hop production and

drying operations • Land Leases

Potential Recreational, Retreat and Resort Uses

• Restaurants, lodging and conference facilities • Spa and wellness centers • Equestrian, bike and pedestrian trails linking

existing communities • Ag-enterprise linked to Sloughhouse

products • Potential additional retail sales capture • Regional Parks • Sports Venues and Outdoor Recreation

Sports

• County Urban Services Boundary

• Governance Issues • Flood Zone • Existing leases on

buffer lands • Site Conditions or Soil

Quality • Incompatibility with

Adjacent Uses • Environmental impacts



PART II – THE MATRICES AND DISCUSSION OF THE MATRICES

Through the technical review and public outreach process 13 land use opportunities and 3 implementation strategies have been identified and are evaluated against standardized criteria in a land use matrix (Table 2). The opportunities were developed to support the goals of a continued use of the Kiefer Landfill to the end of its useful life, a recognition of opportunity for land not owned by the County, and a minimization of impacts on neighboring properties and the environment. The matrix evaluation includes the following components: planning timeline horizons, planning category areas, the opportunity, and the evaluation criteria. The following section covers these components within the discussion for each opportunity.

The evaluation criteria makes some basic acknowledgments, that in some instances a particular land use may not be feasible from a current economic basis, or that biological constraints may not be mitigable. In addition, the economic feasibility of most land uses requires additional market research and analysis that should be conducted in advance, but at a time much closer to when a specific land use is being considered for a specific geographic area.

The evaluation also assumes that proposed uses may not be entirely compatible with the current landfill operations, but in fact may create benefits to the landfill over the proposed time horizons. Similarly, proposed opportunities may not be consistent with all existing public policies, yet may be consistent with specific land use policies for the identified properties (i.e., land use designation and zoning requirements).

And while it is important to recognize that the LUFA process distinguishes between four different categories of land ownership as a part of the evaluation, the matrix does not discriminate against lands not owned by the County. In most cases the evaluation recognizes that the policies and opportunities described herein, affect all lands equally, in and immediately adjacent to the buffer regardless of ownership. Therefore, the discussion that follows the matrix identifies where potential amendments to current land use and economic policy may be necessary to entertain uses on lands within and adjacent to the landfill buffer owned by the County and private landowners. And unless specifically noted, it is assumed that all opportunities can occur on all categories of land.

The buffer lands planning timeline horizons include the: • Short-Term, expected to occur within the next 3 years from 2007 – 2010, • Mid-Term, expected to occur in the next 20 Years (i.e., between 2010-20300), and • Long-Term, expected to occur in the next 40-60 years and beyond.

Each opportunity is evaluated against criteria identified by the County for this scope of work. Those categories include:

• Potential environmental constraints • Likelihood of public acceptance • General Plan consistency • Other potential legislative constraints

• Economic constraints

The opportunities discussed in this section are grouped into major resource topics with a detailed discussion following the matrix. The opportunities by resource topic are:

• Waste Management and Recycling 1. Waste Management and Recycling Facilities and Operations 2. Advanced Recycling Industries 3. Energy Production Uses/Transportation Fueling Stations



4. Research and Development and Education • Biological Resources

5. Landfill-only Preserve 6. County Project Preserve 7. Commercial Mitigation Bank 8. South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP) Preserve Lands 9. Safe Harbor Agreement

• Land Use Opportunities 10. Ag – Enterprise (Agritourism, Farm and Agricultural Product Showcases) 11. Potential Recreational and Resort Land Uses 12. New Planned Urban Development 13. County Ground Lease

• Land Use Plan Implementation Strategies 14. Enterprise Development Zone (EDZ) 15. Layering Land Uses and Values 16. Collaborative Planning and Potential Partnerships

The buffer land planning area comprises four categories areas of land ownership and proximity to the Kiefer Landfill as defined by DWMR as the primary project study area, and include:

• Category 1 - County-owned lands in the 2,000 foot buffer extending from the footprint of the permitted landfill;

• Category 2 - Privately-owned lands in the 2,000 foot buffer extending from the footprint of the permitted landfill;

• Category 3 - County-owned lands beyond and immediately adjacent to the 2,000 foot buffer; • Category 4 - Privately-owned lands beyond and immediately adjacent to the 2,000 foot buffer

Waste Management and Recycling

Biological

Land Use Opportunities

Land Use Implementation Strategies

Not an Obstacle Varies Upon Use An Obstacle

Category 1 County-owned lands within the two

thousand foot buffer extending from the footprint of the permitted landfill

Lik

elih

ood

of P

ublic

Acc

epta

nce

Gen

eral

Pla

n C

onsi

sten

cy

Oth

er P

oten

tial L

egis

lativ

e C

onst

rain

ts

SHORT-TERM3 Year: 2007-2010

MID-TERM20 Year: 2010-2030

Pot

entia

l Env

ironm

enta

l Con

stra

ints

Eco

nom

ic C

onst

rain

ts

Oth

er P

oten

tial L

egis

lativ

e C

onst

rain

ts

Eco

nom

ic C

onst

rain

ts

OPPORTUNITY

LONG-TERM60 Year: 2030-2090

Pot

entia

l Env

ironm

enta

l Con

stra

ints

Lik

elih

ood

of P

ublic

Acc

epta

nce

Gen

eral

Pla

n C

onsi

sten

cy

Oth

er P

oten

tial L

egis

lativ

e C

onst

rain

ts

16. Collaborative Planning and Potential Partnerships

15. Layering Land Uses and Values

10. Ag-Enterprise - Farm and Agricultural Product Showcases

11. Potential Recreational and Resort Land Uses

12. New Planned Urban Development

13. County Ground Leases

7. Commercial Mitigation Banking

8. South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP)

9. Safe Harbor Agreement

14. Enterprise Development Zones (EDZ)

3. Energy Uses/ Transportation Fueling Stations

4. Research and Development/ Economic Development

5. Landfill-only Mitigation

6. County Project Mitigation

1. Waste Management and Recycling Facility Operations

Eco

nom

ic C

onst

rain

ts

2. Advanced Recycling Industries

Pot

entia

l Env

ironm

enta

l Con

stra

ints

Lik

elih

ood

of P

ublic

Acc

epta

nce

Gen

eral

Pla

n C

onsi

sten

cy


Biological




Category 2 Privately-owned lands within the two

thousand foot buffer extending from the footprint of the permitted landfill

Lik

elih

ood

of P

ublic

Acc

epta

nce

Gen

eral

Pla

n C

onsi

sten

cy

Oth

er P

oten

tial L

egis

lativ

e C

onst

rain

ts



Pot

entia

l Env

ironm

enta

l Con

stra

ints

Eco

nom

ic C

onst

rain

ts

Oth

er P

oten

tial L

egis

lativ

e C

onst

rain

ts

Eco

nom

ic C

onst

rain

ts

OPPORTUNITY


Pot

entia

l Env

ironm

enta

l Con

stra

ints

Lik

elih

ood

of P

ublic

Acc

epta

nce

Gen

eral

Pla

n C

onsi

sten

cy

Oth

er P

oten

tial L

egis

lativ

e C

onst

rain

ts
















Eco

nom

ic C

onst

rain

ts


Pot

entia

l Env

ironm

enta

l Con

stra

ints

Lik

elih

ood

of P

ublic

Acc

epta

nce

Gen

eral

Pla

n C

onsi

sten

cy


Biological




Category 3 County-owned lands beyond and immediately adjacent to the two

thousand foot buffer

Lik

elih

ood

of P

ublic

Acc

epta

nce

Gen

eral

Pla

n C

onsi

sten

cy

Oth

er P

oten

tial L

egis

lativ

e C

onst

rain

ts



Pot

entia

l Env

ironm

enta

l Con

stra

ints

Eco

nom

ic C

onst

rain

ts

Oth

er P

oten

tial L

egis

lativ

e C

onst

rain

ts

Eco

nom

ic C

onst

rain

ts

OPPORTUNITY


Pot

entia

l Env

ironm

enta

l Con

stra

ints

Lik

elih

ood

of P

ublic

Acc

epta

nce

Gen

eral

Pla

n C

onsi

sten

cy

Oth

er P

oten

tial L

egis

lativ

e C

onst

rain

ts
















Eco

nom

ic C

onst

rain

ts


Pot

entia

l Env

ironm

enta

l Con

stra

ints

Lik

elih

ood

of P

ublic

Acc

epta

nce

Gen

eral

Pla

n C

onsi

sten

cy


Biological




Category 4 Privately-owned lands beyond and

immediately adjacent to the two thousand foot buffer

Lik

elih

ood

of P

ublic

Acc

epta

nce

Gen

eral

Pla

n C

onsi

sten

cy

Oth

er P

oten

tial L

egis

lativ

e C

onst

rain

ts



Pot

entia

l Env

ironm

enta

l Con

stra

ints

Eco

nom

ic C

onst

rain

ts

Oth

er P

oten

tial L

egis

lativ

e C

onst

rain

ts

Eco

nom

ic C

onst

rain

ts

OPPORTUNITY


Pot

entia

l Env

ironm

enta

l Con

stra

ints

Lik

elih

ood

of P

ublic

Acc

epta

nce

Gen

eral

Pla

n C

onsi

sten

cy

Oth

er P

oten

tial L

egis

lativ

e C

onst

rain

ts
















Eco

nom

ic C

onst

rain

ts


Pot

entia

l Env

ironm

enta

l Con

stra

ints

Lik

elih

ood

of P

ublic

Acc

epta

nce

Gen

eral

Pla

n C

onsi

sten

cy



WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING OPPORTUNITIES

Opportunity 1: Waste and Recycling Operations

As described in detail in the technical memorandum, waste and recycling opportunities include facilities whose primary purpose is to divert waste from the landfill. The opportunities include resource recovery parks that cluster facilities for reusing, recycling, and composting of solid waste, and include materials recovery facilities, green and/or other organic waste processing, composting, materials re-use, construction and demolition debris recycling and reprocessing, and recycled aggregate processing.

Evaluation Criteria Discussion: For all planning category areas, the evaluation of waste and recycling opportunities considers the following potential environmental issues: air quality, water quality, noise, aesthetics, traffic, and odors and general nuisance. The likelihood of public acceptance of the waste management and recycling operations is generally high. The Kiefer Landfill site has been utilized for waste management activities for many years, and new recycling operations will accept the same types of materials that are presently brought to the landfill and will divert them for other beneficial uses, including the continuation of recycling activities already conducted onsite. Some of the opportunities have the potential to reduce traffic impacts in the region, by eliminating the need to transport waste and recyclables outside the County. Waste management and recycling uses are generally consistent with General Plan policies because the site is presently utilized for solid waste operations. Legislative considerations include potential changes to legislation regarding recycling mandates for cities and counties. If the State legislature increases the diversion mandate beyond 50 percent, new recycling, composting and other waste management systems will need to be implemented in the County in order for the County and cities to achieve higher solid waste diversion rates. Economic considerations related to this opportunity include capital costs associated with the development of the recycling and other facilities, and potential public/private partnerships for design and/or operation of recycling facilities.

Planning Timeline Horizons:

Short-Term: Some of these operations, such as green waste processing and reuse facilities are feasible within the short-term planning horizon because they can be designed and built within three years. Other facilities, such as material recovery facilities (MRFs) and composting facilities, will take longer to design, permit, and construct.

Mid-Term: The remaining operations, such as MRFs, composting, construction and demolition debris recycling and reprocessing, and recycled aggregate processing are feasible within the mid-term planning horizon.

Long-Term: All of these opportunities are feasible within the long-term planning horizon.

Opportunity 2: Advanced Recycling Industries

As described in detail in the technical memorandum, advanced recycling industries include further recycling/reuse of plastics, paper, metals, construction and demolition (C&D) materials, wood/green waste, other organic waste, aggregate, tires, production of recycled products (i.e., manufacturing of products using recovered materials such as raw materials), recycled asphalt or cement plant, and manufacturing of LEED-Ready Construction Material Recycling. These land uses would require the development of light to medium-industrial space for reclamation and packaging of reusable building materials.



Evaluation Criteria Discussion: For all planning category areas, the evaluation of advanced recycling opportunities considers the following potential environmental issues: air quality, water quality, aesthetics, noise, traffic, and odors and general nuisance. The likelihood of public acceptance of the advanced recycling operations is medium. The site has been utilized for solid waste operations for many years, and the advanced recycling operations will generally accept the same types of materials that are presently brought to the landfill, and divert them for other uses. However, the manufacturing aspects may not be acceptable to some of the surrounding community. Legislative considerations include potential changes to legislation regarding recycling mandates for cities and counties. If the State increases the diversion mandate beyond 50 percent, new recycling, composting and other waste management systems will need to be implemented in the County in order for the County and cities to achieve higher solid waste diversion rates. Economic considerations related to this opportunity include the availability of markets for the manufactured goods, and the ongoing stability of these markets.


Short-Term: Most of these operations, including recycling/reuse of plastics, paper, metals, C&D materials, wood/green waste, aggregate, tires, production of recycled products (i.e., manufacturing of products using recovered materials such as raw materials), recycled asphalt or cement plant, and manufacturing of LEED-Ready Construction Material Recycling, are not feasible within the short-term planning horizon because it will require additional time to design, permit, and build the facilities.

Mid-Term: The majority of the operations are feasible within the mid-term planning horizon.

Long-Term: All of these opportunities are feasible within the long-term planning horizon.

Opportunity 3: Energy Production, Energy Uses, and Transportation Fuels

As described in detail in the technical memorandum, the energy use and fuel opportunities include a biomass facility or landfill gas (LFG) to energy power production, liquefied natural gas and/or compressed natural gas (LNG/CNG) fueling facility, heavy users of electric power, heat, natural gas, which can make use of LFG or digester gas derived power, gas, and/or waste heat, solar energy development, and Bio-Reactor landfill development of future landfill cells.

Also included in this category are anaerobic digestion and other municipal solid waste conversion technologies, such as gasification, pyrolysis, hydrolysis, catalytic conversion, and plasma arc. Most utilize the organic fraction of the waste stream to produce either a gas or other fuel for energy generation.

Evaluation Criteria Discussion: For all planning category areas, the evaluation of energy production use and transportation fuels considers the following potential environmental issues: air quality, water quality, aesthetics, noise, traffic, and odors and general nuisance. The likelihood of public acceptance of these operations is considered medium to low. Although the site has been utilized for solid waste operations for many years, and an existing landfill gas recovery system operates on site, these advanced technologies may be considered too land use intensive, and because of the relative infancy of some, the community may be doubtful of their ability to perform effectively and without negative impacts to the community. Regulatory considerations include permitting considerations for the energy facilities, both from the State and local agencies, as well as the aforementioned potential changes to legislation regarding recycling mandates for cities and counties. If the State increases the diversion mandate beyond 50 percent, new recycling, composting and other waste management systems will need to be implemented in the County in order for the County and cities to achieve higher solid waste diversion rates. Economic considerations related to this opportunity



include capital costs associated with the development of the facilities, potential public/private partnerships for design and/or operation of the facilities, and revenue considerations for energy generation and sales.

Short-Term: Most of these energy production, energy use, or transportation fuel technologies are not feasible within the short-term planning horizon because it will require additional time to permit, design and build the facilities.

Mid-Term: The majority of the operations described above are feasible within the mid-term planning horizon.

Long-Term: All of these opportunities described above are feasible within the long-term planning horizon.

Opportunity 4: Research and Development; Economic Development

As described in detail in the technical memorandum, the research and development (R&D) and economic development opportunities include facilities that would serve as the focus of green energy technology in the Sacramento region, or economic enterprise zone, with the potential for the sale of energy or energy credits as well as the creation and sale of greenhouse gas reduction credits as a means to attract industry and drive the creation of public/private partnerships between the County and regional research universities.

Evaluation Criteria Discussion: For all planning category areas, the evaluation of R&D and economic development opportunities considers the following potential environmental issues: air quality, water quality, aesthetics, noise, traffic, and odors and general nuisance. The likelihood of public acceptance of the R&D and economic development opportunities is generally high. The facilities could create employment opportunities in both the short- and long-term, depending on the success of the research. R&D and economic development uses are generally consistent with General Plan policies because the site is presently utilized for solid waste operations and by use of special use permits.

Legislative considerations include permitting considerations for facilities, and as well as the aforementioned potential changes to legislation regarding recycling mandates for cities and counties. If the State increases the diversion mandate beyond 50 percent, new recycling, composting and other waste management systems will need to be implemented in the County in order for the County and cities to achieve higher solid waste diversion rates. Economic considerations related to this opportunity include capital costs associated with the development of the facilities, potential public/private partnerships for R&D facilities, and evaluation of cost compared to benefit in establishing an enterprise zone or other associated economic development mechanism.

Short-Term: Most research and development, green energy technology, and sale of energy credit opportunities are feasible within the short-term planning horizon.

Mid-Term: All of these opportunities described above are feasible within the mid-term planning horizon.

Long-Term: All of these opportunities described above are feasible within the long-term planning horizon.



BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Opportunity 5: Landfill-only Preserve

The buffer lands provide the DWMR with lands that could provide future mitigation for landfill-specific projects, or even landfill-related projects such as any eco-industrial development. Using buffer lands to provide landfill mitigation has already been accomplished in the development of the Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat Preserve and Kiefer Landfill Wetland Preserve.

Evaluation Criteria Discussion: For all planning category areas, environmental constraints associated with landfill-only preserves are limited. The enhancement or restoration of the natural environment has positive environmental impacts by creating habitat for special-status species and does not create any environmental impacts.

The likelihood of public acceptance for a landfill-only preserve could be considered generally high, based on public comments preferring the landfill to be used for less intense activities. However, preservation sites can cause concern if property owners suspect that protected habitat or species within a preserve could be migrating onto their land, and potentially preventing future development uses, or requiring additional mitigation for any development that has the potential to result in a take of protected habitat and species. A landfill-only preserve is generally consistent with General Plan Open Space policies. There are no other related legislative considerations.

Economic considerations relating to this opportunity include saving the County time and costs of purchasing credits at a commercial mitigation or conservation bank, or finding other County or non-County parcels to dedicate for mitigation purposes. Using the lands in this manner forecloses other development opportunities, including development of a commercial mitigation bank, which could yield higher monetary benefits to DWMR. Landowners would likely prefer higher level of development, and conservation easement would foreclose development options.

Planning Area Category Discussion: While a preserve site for landfill mitigation could technically be developed on any lands in or adjacent to the buffer lands, it is more likely that a landfill-only preserve would be established only on County-owned properties in or outside the buffer land, and not on private land.


Short-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the short-term planning horizon because mitigation lands can be established, or even enhanced within a three-year time frame, however there is a low level of need within the short-term as significant land fill mitigation lands have already been implemented within the area.

Mid-Term: This opportunity is feasible within the mid-term horizon, and becomes more valuable as other mitigation lands become more scarce in the future as other development potentially results in the permanent loss of other available habitat in the region. Moderate probability of need due to landfill development over the time horizon.

Long-Term: This opportunity is feasible within the long-term planning horizon and becomes more valuable into the future as regional development results in the permanent loss of habitat. High probability of need due to landfill development over the long-term time horizon.



Opportunity 6: County Project Preserve

Rather than restricting the use of the buffer lands to only landfill projects, lands could be used to mitigate other Sacramento County projects, such as road improvements and other public infrastructure construction. DWMR could generate income from other County entities to establish conservation easements on select parcels. Fees collected from the other County entities would be applied to maintenance of the lands consistent with the requirement of resource agencies.

Evaluation Criteria Discussion: Environmental constraints associated with County project preserves are limited. The enhancement or restoration of the natural environment has positive environmental impacts by creating habitat for special-status species and does not create any environmental impacts.

The likelihood of public acceptance for a County preserve could be considered generally high, based on public comments preferring the landfill to be used for less intense activities. However, preservation sites can cause concern if property owners suspect that protected habitat or species within a preserve could be migrating onto their land, and potentially preventing future development uses, or requiring additional mitigation for any development that has the potential to result in a take of protected habitat and species. A County project preserve is generally consistent with General Plan Open Space policies. There are no other related legislative considerations.

When considering economic issues, by using the buffer lands as a County mitigation bank and assuming the County mitigation bank offers comparable value to lands lost as part of the proposed infrastructure or public facility project, overall mitigation costs for public projects could be reduced because the project would not require acquisition of privately held lands for mitigation or the purchase of credits through a commercial mitigation bank. Using the lands as a County mitigation bank forecloses other development opportunities, including development of a commercial mitigation bank, that could yield higher monetary benefits to DWMR, and increases DWMR workload by having to maintain lands for non-landfill uses.

Planning Area Category Discussion: While a preserve site for County project mitigation could technically be developed on any lands in or adjacent to the buffer lands, it is more likely that a County project preserve would be established only on County-owned properties in or outside the buffer land, and not on private land.


Short-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the short-term planning horizon because mitigation lands can be established, or even enhanced within a three-year time frame. Moderate probability of need based on County projects.

Mid-Term: This opportunity is feasible within the mid-term planning horizon, and becomes more valuable as other mitigation lands become more scarce in the future as other development potentially results in the permanent loss of other available habitat in the region. High probability of need based on County projects.

Long-Term: This opportunity is feasible within the long-term planning horizon and becomes more valuable into the future as regional development results in the permanent loss of habitat. High probability of need based on County projects.



Opportunity 7: Commercial Mitigation Banking

DWMR could establish a commercial mitigation/conservation bank to sell credits to public and/or private entities for development projects in the area.

Evaluation Criteria Discussion: Environmental constraints associated with a commercial mitigation bank are limited. The enhancement or restoration of the natural environment has positive environmental impacts by creating habitat for special-status species and does not create any environmental impacts.

The likelihood of public acceptance for a commercial mitigation bank could be considered moderate, based on public feedback regarding the option. It is assumed that the option does not seem to be as valuable as perceived sales for other investment opportunities. Commercial mitigation banking is generally consistent with General Plan Open Space policies. There are no other related legislative considerations.

When considering economic issues, commercial mitigation banking would likely maximize financial return for habitat conservation but would also require increased time and costs associated with developing a mitigation banking instrument with the resource agencies, funding an endowment to assure long-term operation and maintenance, and partnering with a commercial management agency to run day-to-day operations. The option may not provide as much return as a residential or commercial development. As compared to other biological resource opportunities considered in this LUFA, development of a commercial mitigation bank has higher up-front cash flow requirements, requiring the most amount of time, and contains the greatest amount of risk to the County.

Planning Area Category Discussion: Commercial mitigation could be developed on any lands in or adjacent to the buffer lands, owned by the County or by private owners.

Short-Term: These opportunities are relatively feasible within the short-term planning horizon because mitigation lands could be established, or even enhanced within a three-year time frame.

Mid-Term: This opportunity is feasible within the mid-term planning horizon and becomes more valuable as other mitigation lands become more scarce in the future as other development potentially results in the permanent loss of other available habitat in the region.

Long-Term: This opportunity is feasible within the long-term planning horizon and becomes more valuable into the future as regional development results in the permanent loss of habitat.

Opportunity 8: South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan Preserve Lands

DWMR could sell designated areas within the buffer lands to the SSHCP management agency to preserve land to provide linkage to other “core” preserves in region.

Evaluation Criteria Discussion: Environmental constraints associated with the SSHCP are limited. The enhancement or restoration of the natural environment has positive environmental impacts by creating habitat for special-status species and does not create any environmental impacts.

The likelihood of public acceptance for SSHCP preserve lands could be considered mixed, based on public comments preferring the landfill to be used for less intense activities. However, preservation sites can cause concern if property owners suspect that protected habitat or species within a preserve could be migrating



onto their land, and potentially preventing future development uses, or requiring additional mitigation for any development that has the potential to result in a take of protected habitat and species. Because this plan would also address a regional need for mitigation lands, it comports with General Plan policies, in particular the Policies articulated in the Conservation Element of the approved Draft General Plan Update and is consistent with landfill operations. There are no other related legislative considerations.

When considering economic issues, this alternative has the advantage of preserve establishment and operation and maintenance costs being borne by the SSHCP management group, while DWMR receives payment for the lands. However, it would likely generate a reduced income stream compared to other biological resource opportunities discussed above, or commercial or residential development.

Planning Area Category Discussion: SSHCP preserve lands could be developed on any lands in or adjacent to the buffer lands, owned by the County or by private owners.


Short-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the short-term planning horizon because mitigation lands can be established or even enhanced within a three-year time frame.

Mid-Term: This opportunity is feasible within the mid-term planning horizon and becomes more valuable as other mitigation lands become more scarce in the future as other development potentially results in the permanent loss of other available habitat in the region.

Long-Term: This opportunity is feasible within the long-term planning horizon and becomes more valuable into the future and regional development results in the permanent loss of habitat.

Opportunity 9: Safe Harbor Agreements

The DWMR could establish a Safe Harbor Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the buffer lands. Under such an agreement, DWMR could maintain the existing lands to protect currently listed species at a base level and even adopt measures to improve habitat. However, after the expiration of the agreement, if DWMR decided to develop the property for a use other than habitat preservation, it would only be responsible to mitigate for losses of the baseline values established under the agreement.

Evaluation Criteria Discussion: Environmental constraints associated with Safe Harbor Agreements are limited. However, because Safe Harbor Agreements are designed to exempt protection and mitigation from future potential protected species growth, the opportunity has the potential to threaten future established protected species and habitat. The likelihood of public acceptance for Safe Harbor Agreements remains unknown at this time based on a lack of feedback regarding this option from the public.

This opportunity is consistent with General Plan policies AG-9 and AG-10, as discussed in the Technical Memorandum. Both AG-9 and AG-10 provides direction to balance habitat values with private landowner and agricultural investments. There are no other related legislative considerations.

While this alternative would not generate income to DWMR, it would provide valuable habitat protection over the term of the agreement, and not penalize the agency for increased habitat benefits provided during that term.



Planning Area Category Discussion: Safe Harbor Agreements could be developed on any lands in or adjacent to the buffer lands, owned by the County or by private owners.


Short-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the short-term planning horizon because this is an administrative process that could be conducted within a three-year time frame.

Mid-Term: As habitat becomes more scarce, it is uncertain how long the regulatory agency may allow for these types of exceptions for mitigation of protected habitat and species, and other preserve options may provide more economic return.

Long-Term: As habitat becomes more scarce, it is uncertain how long the regulatory agency may allow for these types of exceptions for mitigation of protected habitat and species, and other preserve options may provide more economic return.

LAND USE OPPORTUNITIES

Opportunity 10: Ag-Enterprise (Agritourism, Farm and Agricultural Product Showcases)

As described in detail in the technical memorandum, ag-enterprise and agricultural product showcase opportunities could include an expanded farmers market, seasonal crop celebrations and product tasting events and venues, an agricultural genome repository to preserve heirloom crops, and revitalization of Sloughhouse hop production and drying operations.

Evaluation Criteria Discussion: For all planning category areas, the evaluation of ag-enterprise and agricultural product showcases and recycling opportunities considers the need to mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitat and adverse affects to surrounding sensitive habitat associated with this use, as well as soil conditions and flood areas that may not support certain types of agriculture and agriculture-related uses. The likelihood of public acceptance of the basic ag-enterprise and agricultural product showcases is generally strong because its integration into the existing area landscape would be one that enhances the character of the area without subjecting it to significant adverse impacts.

Ag-enterprise and agricultural product showcase uses are generally consistent with General Plan policies because they would not necessitate a more intensive agricultural land use in most cases and would fit into the current General Plan Zoning of AG-80. The plans for the Connector Project would improve and expand Grant Line Road, would increase traffic along Grant Line Road, and provide accessibility to ag-enterprise and agricultural product showcases. There are no other regulatory considerations based on a review of all relevant regulatory information.

Economic considerations related to this opportunity include the impacts on existing businesses by supplementing the existing ag-enterprise and agricultural product showcases as well as creating new opportunities in these areas. Expanding current ag-enterprise-based industries could generate additional revenues for existing businesses because the introduction of new complementary businesses to the area would take advantage of synergy created within the ag-enterprise and product showcase market. Another economic consideration would be the level of demand for these opportunities. Population projections and the proposed specific plan development in neighboring areas would drive demand for ag-enterprise and agricultural product showcases; however, sufficient demand in relation to the supply of these types of uses



would need to exist for these opportunities to be economically feasible. As mentioned, the Connector Project would bring opportunity for additional business through increased visibility and accessibility. Finally, partnerships between businesses, public entities, and educational programs could be created for uses such as an agricultural genome repository or general agricultural uses that could be incorporated into educational programs.

Planning Area Category Discussion: There could be two exceptions to the consideration of ag-enterprise and agricultural product showcase development for the planning categories of lands within the buffer lands: those lands owned by the County and those that are privately owned. It is highly unlikely that agricultural development will occur within the buffer lands while the landfill is in operation and after closure due to soil conditions and public acceptance of agricultural production so close to the landfill. Ag-enterprise and agricultural product showcases are more likely to occur on lands in and around Deer Creek, in the southern portion of the buffer lands.


Short-Term: These opportunities are not feasible within the short-term planning horizon because a large portion of the buffer lands and surrounding lands are currently leased by the County. A large percentage of these leases do not expire within the next three years, limiting the potential development of these opportunities. In addition, the development of new ag-enterprise and product showcase business opportunities would likely require a longer period in order for sufficient demand to develop.

Mid-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the mid-term planning horizon because these opportunities often have few environmental impacts, are typically supported by the public, and are generally consistent with the existing character of the region and with existing General Plan policies. In addition, it is likely demand will exist for ag-enterprise and agricultural product showcases, driven by future population growth along U.S. Highway 50 and communities neighboring the buffer lands.

Long-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the long-term planning horizon. See Mid-Term planning horizon text for an explanation of reasons for feasibility.

Opportunity 11: Potential Recreational and Resort Land Uses

As described in detail in the technical memorandum, potential recreational and resort land uses include development of regional parks and trails and support of the continued use of existing facilities such as the Murieta Equestrian Facility and the Sloughhouse Inn.

Evaluation Criteria Discussion: For all planning category areas, the evaluation of potential recreational and resort land uses considers the need to mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitat and adverse affects to surrounding sensitive habitat associated with this use. The likelihood of public acceptance of the basic potential recreational and resort land uses is generally moderate to strong. Regional Park land uses typically have minimal impacts while other more intensive land uses would have greater impacts, such as increased traffic.

Recreational and resort land uses are not consistent with General Plan policies because the current zoning of the buffer lands and the majority of adjacent properties is AG-80, which is a general agricultural designation. This designation specifies that lands zoned AG-80 are “less suited for intensive agricultural,” and allows a maximum of one dwelling unit per 80 acres. The Sacramento County General Plan Update could potentially amend land use designations of the buffer lands and adjacent lands to allow for recreational and resort land uses. Plans for the Connector Project will improve and expand Grant Line Road and will increase visibility



and accessibility to recreational and resort land uses. There are no other regulatory considerations based on a review of relevant regulatory information.

Economic considerations related to this opportunity include the impacts on existing businesses of expanding recreation and resort uses and developing new facilities. New opportunities could be mutually supportive of existing uses, contributing to a renewed interest in the area and increased generation of business and tax revenue. The potential for business advertising and improved accessibility due to the Connector Project could also increase consumer capture and generate additional revenue for business owners and the County. A key economic consideration for these land use opportunities would be the level of demand for these opportunities. Population projections and the proposed specific plan development in neighboring areas would drive demand for recreation and resort uses; however, sufficient demand, in relation to the supply of these types of uses, would need to exist for these opportunities to be economically feasible.

Planning Area Category Discussion: These opportunities could exist in any of the four categories.


Short-Term: These opportunities are not feasible within the short-term planning horizon because a large portion of the buffer lands and surrounding lands are currently leased by the County. A large percentage of these leases do not expire within the next three years, limiting the potential development of these opportunities. In addition, the development of new recreation and resort uses opportunities would likely require a longer period of time than the short-term period of three years.

Mid-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the mid-term planning horizon because these opportunities often have fewer environmental impacts than other land uses and are typically supported by the public. In addition, projected growth in nearby unincorporated Sacramento County and other neighboring municipalities indicates that demand will likely exist for these opportunities. If proposed recreation and resort land uses are limited in other developments, locating these types of uses in the buffer lands could capture future demand for these land uses.


Opportunity 12: New Planned Urban Development

As described in detail in the technical memorandum, new planned urban development includes conveying County lands to others for development.

Evaluation Criteria Discussion: For all planning category areas, the evaluation of new planned urban development considers the need to mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitat and adverse affects to surrounding sensitive habitat associated with this use. The likelihood of public acceptance of new planned urban development is generally strong if neighboring land owners are afforded the same opportunity to develop their land as that which the County would possess.

Potential new planned urban development uses are not consistent with General Plan policies because current zoning of the buffer lands and the majority of adjacent properties is AG-80, which is a general agricultural designation that allows a maximum of one dwelling unit per 80 acres. It is possible that much or all of planned urban development would be incorporated into the City of Rancho Cordova at a future period of time and any legislative issues related to the incorporation of these properties would need to be addressed. The plans for the Connector Project will improve and expand Grant Line Road and would increase visibility



and accessibility to the new planned urban development, making it more feasible to develop the buffer lands and adjacent properties as Rancho Cordova grows. There are no other regulatory considerations based on a review of relevant regulatory information.

Economic considerations related to this opportunity include the opportunity for new urban development of property within and adjacent to City of Rancho Cordova and the potential monetary return to the County from selling land in the commercial market. As Rancho Cordova and adjacent areas continue to grow, the buffer lands and adjacent land will become more attractive to developers and thus more valuable to land owners. Other economic considerations include the following: portions of County-owned land are located in the path of future urban developments; some portions are within the County USB; some portions are within the City of Rancho Cordova city limits; some portions are adjacent to future planned development; and long-term demand for housing in the region indicates that potential new urban development would be feasible in the mid- and long-term. In addition, the Connector Project will increase visibility and accessibility of the buffer lands, while connecting any potential urban development to other nearby communities. This will increase demand for land to be developed. Finally, projected growth in areas near the buffer lands indicates that substantial demand will exist for residential and commercial development that could be supplied by development in the buffer lands.

Planning Area Category Discussion: New planned urban development opportunities may be feasible on land outside of the 2000 foot buffer area. These areas include lands owned by the County and those lands that are privately owned. It is highly unlikely that any residential development will occur within the 2000 foot buffer area for both County-owned and privately owned-lands due to existing buffer land use designation and actual and/or perceived negative impacts of the landfill operations on residential properties.

.


Short-Term: These opportunities are not feasible within the short-term planning horizon because a large portion of the buffer lands and surrounding lands are currently leased by the County. A large percentage of these leases do not expire within the next three years, limiting the potential development of these opportunities. In addition, the process of development of new planned urban development opportunities would likely require a longer period than three years to occur.

Mid-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the mid-term planning horizon because new planned urban development land uses have a varying level of support from the public. Projected growth in nearby unincorporated Sacramento County and other neighboring areas indicates that demand will likely exist for these opportunities. In addition, the location of many of the buffer land parcels either in or around the USB, the City of Rancho Cordova city limits, and future planned development indicate this opportunity will likely be feasible.


Opportunity 13: County Ground Leases

As described in detail in the technical memorandum, County ground leases include continued grazing and agricultural leases and potentially developing leases for other uses such as resource recovery and light industrial land uses.



Evaluation Criteria Discussion: For all planning category areas, the evaluation of County ground leases considers the need to mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitat and adverse affects to surrounding sensitive habitat associated with the different land uses on County-leased land. The likelihood of public acceptance of the basic County ground leases is generally strong for grazing and agricultural leases because of the lack of adverse impacts associated with these specific uses on the existing community, and weak for uses related to resource recovery or light industrial uses due to environmental, traffic, and noise impacts.

County ground leases that specify grazing and agricultural uses are generally consistent with General Plan policies because they are allowed within the AG-80 land use designation that encompasses the majority of the buffer lands and adjacent properties. County ground leases that allow for resource recovery or light industrial uses are not consistent with General Plan policies due to the agricultural designation of the buffer lands.

Other legislative considerations include the USB and the Sacramento County General Plan Update. The USB would need to be extended in order to provide services to any more intensive land uses that would be on leased land and that would result in an increased demand on service capacity than that which is currently available. The Sacramento County General Plan Update could potentially amend the land use designations of the buffer lands and adjacent lands to allow for non-agricultural or non-grazing land uses. There are no other regulatory considerations based on a review of relevant regulatory information.

Economic considerations related to this opportunity include the potential income for the County generated by lease rents for varying land uses. Lease rates for land would vary based on the market for varying types of land use. Current lease rates for grazing and agricultural leases typically range between $15 and $70 acre/year for grazing/pasture land (based on irrigation status) and $160 to $220 acre/year for agriculture/cropland. Because ground lease opportunities for resource recovery or other light industrial uses are longer-term opportunities and are dependent demand for an supply of land for this type of use as well as being dependent upon the terms of the lease, it is not possible to speculate on the potential lease values.

Planning Area Category Discussion: There could be two exceptions to the consideration of County ground leases for the planning categories of lands within the buffer lands those lands owned by the County and those lands that are privately owned. The opportunity for continued or future County ground leases would only occur on County-owned lands. The County could purchase privately owned land for leasing, but any land privately owned is not considered as part of this opportunity.


Short-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the short-term planning horizon because a large portion of the buffer lands and surrounding lands are currently leased by the County. Continued leasing of County land will generate income from lease rents. In addition, these opportunities are typically supported by the public (depending on the type of land uses allowed on leased land) and, depending on the type of land use, have little environmental impact.

Mid-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the mid-term planning horizon because there would be little cost to the County to continue leasing land in the buffer lands.




LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

In the event that the County elects to plan and develop these opportunities within and adjacent to the buffer lands, three implementation strategies could be employed to increase the potential for success of such a program. The development of an “Enterprise Development Zone,” the “layering” of land uses and the development of a collaborative planning process are potential land use planning strategies that could unify and expedite the development of complementary land uses adjacent to the Kiefer facility.

Land Use Plan Implementation Strategy 1: Enterprise Development Zones (EDZ)

As described in detail in the technical memorandum, enterprise development zones include developing EDZ to use tax incentives to recruit target businesses such as resource recovery, ag-enterprise and recreation. While the buffer lands would not likely be eligible for the development of a traditional "Economic Development Zone," other economic tools could be employed by the County to incubate and encourage the development of land uses that are complementary to DWMR’s mission.

Enterprise Development Zones are generally in economically depressed areas and established to stimulate growth, development and investment in the area. Taxpayers who invest, operate, or locate a trade or business within an Enterprise Zone may be eligible for special tax incentives. California State Housing and Community Development approves and oversees Enterprise Zones in California. There are 42 Enterprise Zones in the State and three in Sacramento, not including the military base linked Zones. Certain criteria must be met in order to establish an Enterprises Zone. Once formed, certain tax incentives can be made available to employers to hire from the local employment base. It is not likely that this Kiefer buffer lands area would qualify on its own for creation of an Enterprise Zone.

However, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB) administers Recycling Market Development Zones (RMDZ). The entirety of the County of Sacramento is in the Sacramento Regional RMDZ and projects at Kiefer would be eligible for certain incentives.

County Government has the ability to enter into agreements to provide incentives to business within a designated area, including property tax relief, sales tax rebates if applicable, assistance with infrastructure issues, or deferred assessments.

Evaluation Criteria Discussion: For all planning category areas, the evaluation of enterprise development zones considers the need to mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitat and adverse affects to surrounding sensitive habitat caused by the uses that would be allowed within the EDZ. The likelihood of public acceptance of the basic enterprise development zone ranges from weak to strong depending on the land uses allowed in the EDZ. Uses with fewer or less adverse environmental, traffic, or noise impacts would generate stronger public support while uses with greater adverse impacts would generate weaker public support.

Potential EDZ uses are not consistent with General Plan policies because current zoning of the buffer lands and the majority of adjacent properties is AG-80 which is a general agricultural designation that does not support the uses associated with an EDZ. The Sacramento County General Plan Update could potentially amend the land use designations of the buffer lands and adjacent lands to allow for an EDZ. Finally, the plans for the Connector Project will improve and expand Grant Line Road and would increase visibility and accessibility to a potential EDZ. There are no other regulatory considerations based on a review of relevant regulatory information.

Economic considerations related to this opportunity include potential positive and negative economic impacts to existing businesses and residents created by attraction of select businesses, such as resource recovery, ag-enterprise and recreation. The attraction of select businesses to the buffer lands in order generate economic development and tax revenues could negatively impact existing development if new



development is not complementary and compatible with existing uses. By attracting specific businesses that are compatible with current land uses the community character can be maintained while enhancing current business opportunities and creating new ones. Expansion of existing businesses and the development of compatible businesses that create synergy in the market will likely generate additional revenue to businesses and the County. Finally, the Connector Project increases the visibility of and accessibility to any businesses in the buffer land, therefore, positioning the EDZ and businesses located within it competitively within the area.



Short-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the short-term planning horizon because while new development would most likely not occur within the next three years due to the existing County leases, establishing EDZs is a short-term opportunity. The creation of EDZs in the next three years could position the buffer lands for additional economic development after current County leases expire. In addition, certain land uses designated in the EDZ could generate strong public support if they are complementary to existing uses.

Mid-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the mid-term planning horizon because there is significant potential for additional economic development through the development of compatible businesses. The creation of an EDZ with attention to specific land uses and business attraction could generate additional revenue for existing businesses and the County, while positioning the buffer lands competitively in the area with respect to specific land uses.


Land Use Plan Implementation Strategy 2: Layering Land Uses and Values

“Layering” land uses and values includes combining different types of land uses in a unified, cohesive plan to meet multiple objectives such as a resource recovery park that incorporates public transit, passive recreation, and biological mitigation credits. The creation of such a unified plan would allow the creation of a campus of differing uses that could achieve a variety of the County’s land use goals.

Evaluation Criteria Discussion: For all planning category areas, the evaluation of layering land uses and values considers the preservation of sensitive habitat through mitigation banking. The preservation of habitat could be used to mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitat and adverse affects to surrounding sensitive habitat caused by the other uses that may occur within the layers of uses. The likelihood of public acceptance of the layering of land uses and values is generally weak due to the adverse impacts associated with these uses such as traffic and noise pollution, and litter.

Potential layering of land uses and values are not consistent with General Plan policies because current zoning of the buffer lands and the majority of adjacent properties is AG-80 which is a general agricultural designation that does not support the certain layers of uses such as a resource recovery park. Other legislative considerations include the USB, the Sacramento County General Plan Update, and the Connector Project. The USB would need to be extended in order to provide services to any facilities developed in association with layering land uses that would result in an increased demand on service capacity than is currently available. The “Connector Project” will improve and expand Grant Line Road and would improve visibility and accessibility to layered land uses proposed for development. There are no other regulatory considerations based on a review of relevant regulatory information.



Economic considerations related to this opportunity include the positive impacts of future development of the buffer lands by incorporating layering of compatible land uses that can enhance the character of the area while introducing new economic development opportunities. Public/private and public/public partnerships can be used to participate in the planning process in layering appropriate land uses that will create synergy between existing development and future proposed, layered land uses.



Short-Term: These opportunities are not feasible within the short-term planning horizon because a large portion of the buffer lands and surrounding lands are currently leased by the County. A large percentage of these leases do not expire within the next three years, limiting the potential development of the layering of land uses.

Mid-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the mid-term planning horizon because the layering of land uses could generate significant revenue for the County through the sale of mitigation credits.


Land Use Plan Implementation Strategy 3: Collaborative Planning and Potential Partnerships

Collaborative planning and potential partnerships includes developing joint County and municipal land use planning zoning opportunities for industrial, public/quasi-public, educational, or enterprise zones. Also included are County and public partnerships in areas such as utility energy agreements for water to energy, and County and private sector energy agreements.

Evaluation Criteria Discussion: For all planning category areas, the evaluation of collaborative planning and potential partnerships considers the need to mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitat and adverse affects to surrounding sensitive habitat caused by the uses that would be allowed within planning areas, developed using collaborative planning and potential partnerships. The likelihood of public acceptance of collaborative planning and potential partnerships is generally strong due to interest in energy development and partnerships with the County, a desire for private land owners and developers to have input in the planning process and public decision-making, and the desire for the public to be afforded the same development opportunities if they are not involved in the collaboration and potential partnerships.

Collaborative planning and potential partnerships are not consistent with General Plan policies because current zoning of the buffer lands and the majority of adjacent properties is AG-80, which is a general agricultural designation that does not always support the uses suggested within the collaborative planning and potential partnership opportunity. The Sacramento County General Plan Update could potentially amend the land use designations of the buffer lands and adjacent lands to allow for collaborative planning and potential partnerships. Finally, the Connector Project will improve and expand Grant Line Road and will improve visibility and accessibility to land uses developed with collaborative planning and partnerships. There are no other regulatory considerations based on a review of relevant regulatory information.

Economic considerations related to this opportunity include the opportunity for public/private and public/public partnerships to work together in the planning process to layer appropriate land uses that will create synergy between existing development and future planned land uses and potentially bring new economic development to the area.





Short-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the short-term planning horizon because the process of collaboratively planning the future use of lands within the buffer lands as well as the creation of jurisdictional and public/private partnerships can begin at any time. There are no economic constraints to beginning collaborative planning and creating partnerships and, with strong public support, little constrains this opportunity.

Mid-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the mid-term planning horizon. See Short-Term planning horizon text for an explanation of reasons for feasibility.

Long-Term: These opportunities are feasible within the long-term planning horizon. See Short-Term planning horizon text for an explanation of reasons for feasibility.

PART III – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS

The primary planning concepts suggested by this report recommend that the County of Sacramento consider a unique, entrepreneurial approach to the evaluation of the buffer land areas. As the potential developer, or development partner, for different areas within the buffer lands, the County has the opportunity to enhance a regional public works asset, and potentially develop new industrial and recreational uses that could meet the conditional function of the buffer and also generate an ongoing revenue stream.

As detailed in the section below, the analysis has concluded that:

• There are land uses that warrant further consideration • There are compatible and unified land use development opportunities, and that • Land use development timing is based on market and technology ripeness.

Land Uses that Warrant Further Consideration

It has been determined through the LUFA process that certain land uses within and adjacent to the landfill buffer warrant further consideration. The Technical Memorandum referred to these as key opportunities, and they include:

• Resource Recovery Park and Educational Center - An advanced resource recovery operation with the development of complementary waste management and recycling facilities and operations;

o Waste stream utilization to include state of the art recycling of traditional recyclables, and sale of resource.



o Resource recovery within public/private partnerships in an opportunity zone focused on sustainable manufacturing practices and industries that capitalize on landfill residual products.

o The development of energy production projects such as landfill gas to usable energy, and solar energy production.

o Enhanced resource capture, recycling and reuse activities as carbon credit sale opportunity.

o Develop educational facilities to focus attention on resource conservation and compatible use planning.

• Collaborative Planning and Public Partnerships - The County acting as a public asset manager and business catalyst through collaborative planning and efforts and potential partnerships, including a layered approach to land use planning;

• Habitat Conservation - The development of habitat as a resource for current and future County mitigation needs, or as a commercial endeavor through mitigation banking with a unique opportunity to develop water-dependent habitats;

• Regional Recreational Areas - The expansion of recreational opportunities through access and enhancements of open space areas and parkland and a focus on ag-enterprise.

• Agricultural Enterprise Expansion - The expansion of agricultural enterprises through land leases, new crop/product and market initiatives, the revitalization of regional agricultural specializations such as hop production, and the preservation of existing agricultural uses.

Any future development within the buffer area will need to be conducted in accordance with applicable policies, including current and future land use and zoning designations of the County of Sacramento, and in the case of lands located northwest of Grant Line Road, the City of Rancho Cordova. Any development of the buffer lands must be respectful to the rights and land use goals of adjacent property owners, and development opportunities envisioned for the buffer lands should also be made available to interested, adjacent property owners to strengthen landfill-compatible land uses and industries.

Compatible and Unified Land Use Development Opportunities

Of the key opportunities identified, there is a definite pattern to the land uses that could be developed in a unified, compatible manner. Agricultural-based uses, including an expanded ag-enterprise industry, could be deemed compatible with habitat mitigation opportunities and the expansion of recreational opportunities associated with open space and parkland. Waste-based uses, whether focused on the current function of the landfill, or new and innovative resource recovery-based industries, have a likelihood of being mutually supportive. However, future planning efforts could allow each of these opportunities to be compatible with a unified approach to supportive policy.

This approach would require that the County embrace the concept of “multi-layered” land uses that meld industrial (resource recovery and reuse), agricultural (crops, cattle and/or ag-enterprise), and open space (habitat restoration, passive recreation and intra-site and regional trails) in unified planning areas.



Land Use Development Timing Based on Market and Technology Ripeness

The development of any project is dependent upon market characteristics as well as the availability of certain technological advancements when related to advanced resource recovery options. As discovered in the economic evaluation various market indicators can dictate development trends such as population growth and economic conditions. Just as the building and construction market may affect the demand for resources, the demand for mitigation credits can affect the relative monetary value of mitigation opportunities.

Resource recovery and reuse technologies are rapidly evolving and are, in many cases, immediately available. While these technologies may be “technically” available, a regulatory framework that has not yet embraced these processes can hamper the development of large-scale projects. Additionally, local economic conditions (i.e., Kiefer facility “tipping rates”) that may not support capital-intensive facility development and operation. Because of these facts, many of the advanced recycling industries and alternative energy production facilities may be best frosted in pilot projects with government research and development grants.

Despite the immediate challenges of developing such technologies, these industries are clearly the future of waste management and the County’s prudent stewardship of finite resources. The Kiefer buffer lands offer a unique opportunity to provide a site for innovative technology advancements and research. Pilot projects, developed in conjunction with educational institutions and the California Integrated Waste Management Board, are logical developments for the buffer lands if performance standards are defined and implemented to prevent impacts to adjacent resident and their land uses.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The LUFA process has identified feasible land uses that address the County’s land use goals, as defined by the General Plan, and other current waste reduction and reuse initiatives. Based on this evaluation and public input, should any of the land uses warrant further consideration by the Board, the following recommendations have been developed, and detailed below, to foster and guide that process:

1. Establish an information sharing process with neighboring property owners 2. Develop a buffer land use planning process 3. Begin Entitlement Process: Land Use Plan, CEQA Analysis and Permitting, and 4. Establish regular 5-year updates to buffer lands development plan

Recommendation 1 – Establish an Information Sharing Program

The County’s interaction with the Kiefer Landfill’s neighboring and adjacent property owners has been fraught with controversy, miscommunication and litigation over the past 40 years. One of the key constraints that the LUFA process identified was a sense of mistrust among many process participants. This mistrust is due, in large part, to concerns about environmental, health and safety conditions related to groundwater contamination and air quality conditions.

We believe that establishing an ongoing information sharing program would assist DWMR in its mission. Public/private partnerships cannot be envisioned unless trust between both parties can be established. Towards this end, two types of ongoing activities are recommended to be implemented by the LUFA team.



DWMR should invite neighbors to a meeting at DWMR Headquarters each year, on the same day of the week during the same month of each year, to discuss landfill operations, monitoring results, land use issues and any other concerns raised by DWMR or the neighbors. In the event that controversial issues arise from these meetings or any other situations, additional meetings at DWMR should be scheduled to identify and respond to specific issues.

DWMR should use this annual meeting to provide adjacent property owners (and any other interested individuals and groups) to provide a summary of all (non-confidential) environmental monitoring information that is submitted to regulatory agencies is available at the time of report submittal. Interested parties would be directed to postings on the DWMR website and other resources to review this information.

Recommendation 2 – Develop a Buffer Land Use Planning Process

If any or all of the feasible land uses identified by the LUFA process are found to be worthy of additional evaluation by the Board, DWMR should conduct a land use planning process for the buffer lands to identify appropriate and desirable land uses for different zones of the buffer lands. To further any of these land use concepts, three phased land use planning process would be required to

• Identify the appropriate types and locations of land uses, • Develop a blueprint to refine plans, evaluate environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and

• Secure land use entitlements needed to facilitate the private and public partnerships needed to bring these ideas to reality.

DWMR should strongly encourage neighboring property owners to considered participating in developing landfill-compatible land uses, as willing participants, if they express interest in adjacent properties. Neighboring property owners would also be encouraged to consider potential development options that traversed County/private land boundaries and could be accomplished by leasing County lands.

The buffer lands use planning project would define land use zones through the use of a special planning area designation or other planning mechanism. It should focus on combining resource recovery and reuse developments with open space and public use options to the greatest degree possible to achieve multiple County, state and federal land use and environmental goals.

Recommendation 3 – Begin Entitlement Process: Land Use Plan, CEQA Analysis and Permitting

The County should develop land use plans and policies that enable buffer land developments after the completion of the environmental and permitting processes. The establishment of these land use entitlements would clear the way for buffer land development that is consistent with the buffer land plan.

If the Board determines that the buffer land plan is consistent with the County’s goals for the Kiefer Landfill area, the County should conduct an environmental impact assessment and permitting process to clear development opportunities. This analysis should be both as project-specific, to address immediate development opportunities, and programmatic, to address the cumulative and the anticipated impacts of future land uses envisioned by the buffer land use plan. Mitigation of any impacts identified in this process should be mitigated as soon as possible to clear the way for the rapid development of future opportunities and make the Kiefer site as competitive as possible as new technologies and industries develop.



It is important to note that the benefits of this proposed impact assessment and mitigation process, and the development opportunities that it could unleash, should be provided on an equal basis to participating adjacent private land owners to address the “level playing field” element of these recommendations.

Recommendation 4 – Establish Regular Five -year Buffer Land Plan Update Process

The County should establish an ongoing five-year plan update process to assess the accuracy and currency of the existing buffer land plan. The update process is expected to be, in some cycles, to be minor in nature and significant during periods where technologies and markets have evolved rapidly. It is expected that each update process would include the development of a formal request for proposal processes, with performance criteria, for specific development project targeted by the County at that time.

The regular update process will ensure that the buffer land plan, like the Kiefer facility’s Joint Technical Document and Closure Plan, will remain accurate and relevant at all times and responsive to changing market conditions and opportunities.


Kiefer Buffer Lands LUFA Final Report Appendix A Technical Memorandum Page A-1 of 61

APPENDIX A TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

To: Paul Philleo, PE and Dave Ghiradelli, Sacramento County Department of Waste Management & Recycling (DWMR)

From: Steve Peterson and Krysty Emery, ESP

cc: ESP LUFA Team (Jeff Craft and Zach Miller, HLA; Pat Sullivan and Michelle Leonard, SCS; Jamie Gomes and Ashley Leach, EPS; Rick Meredith and Sarah Powell, Padre Associates; and John Taylor and Amanda Rose, ESP), Michele McCormick, Patti Ransdell and Jennifer Tencoti, MMC Communications

Project: Kiefer Land Use Feasibility Analysis

Date: January 8, 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of the LUFA is to understand the extent of the feasible opportunities and potential limitations of the County’s future use of the buffer lands area to help guide the County in decisions regarding such uses. Accordingly, the following memorandum describes existing resources, opportunities, and constraints associated with the Kiefer Land Use Feasibility Analysis (LUFA) project. This information serves as both the planning context and setting for the subsequent process of identifying feasible land use alternatives for the Kiefer Landfill’s buffer areas.

This discussion is presented in the following manner:

• Summary of resource topics and findings, including: ° Project Background ° Resource Section Highlights, and ° Summary of Land Use Opportunities (Table A-1).

• Technical analysis section detailing setting, utilization opportunities, and constraints for each resource area including: ° Waste management and recycling, ° Public policy and public input, ° Biological Resources, and ° Preliminary Economic Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION

The Sacramento County Department of Waste Management & Recycling (DWMR) is responsible for maintaining a waste management system for residents and businesses in the unincorporated area. Residents



in the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County generate approximately 700,000 3tons of waste annually, an amount that is increasing annually. Though new waste management strategies are beginning to affect the way in which waste is disposed of and processed, such as recycling, the amount of waste and recycling that is generated and requires processing is not expected to change in the foreseeable future; therefore, local jurisdictions must proactively plan for the future management of waste disposal and recycling opportunities.

In carrying out its responsibility to maintain a waste system for residents and businesses of the unincorporated area, the County is continually assessing its existing resources in order to best utilize those resources for future uses.

The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors (the Board) established a 2,000-foot “buffer land” zone around the Kiefer Landfill to identify a transitional area between landfill operations and surrounding land uses in the 1993 General Plan development process (see Figure 1). Since that time, the County has become owner of a majority of the buffer lands and additional acreage surrounding the landfill. In 2007, the County retained a consultant team led by Environmental Stewardship & Planning, Inc. (ESP) to develop a program to identify and evaluate a range of beneficial land uses that could promote the operation of the County’s waste management and recycling mission and respond to the land use goals and policies of the Sacramento County General Plan. This Land Use Feasibility Analysis (LUFA) process was designed to, where possible, identify land uses that do not conflict with the current and future uses of adjacent lands owned and managed by private landowners.

In order to understand the range of opportunities available to the County, DWMR and the LUFA team conducted a review of technical and planning information on the Kiefer facility and the County’s adjacent land holdings. This technical review focused on landfill and resource recovery operations at the Kiefer Landfill, the biological resources that occur or could occur in undeveloped areas, the existing land use policy framework that controls these areas and the current and potential economic values of current and future land uses.

The Acting Director of DWMR and members of the LUFA team conducted interviews with County Supervisors and their staff members, adjacent landowners, and representatives of other County agencies and the City of Rancho Cordova to identify concerns and ideas about the current and future uses of the buffer lands. The LUFA team also conducted two workshops, on October 16, 2007 and November 13, 2007, to gain an understanding of community concerns and ideas about the uses of the buffer lands. The results of these reviews and analyses are presented herein.

RESOURCE SECTION HIGHLIGHTS

Public Policy and Planning Concepts

The County currently owns a majority of the buffer lands and has been working on an ongoing basis to acquire additional private property on a ”willing seller” basis. Any future development within the 2,000-foot buffer area (by the County or private property owner) will be conducted in accordance with applicable public policies, including current and future land use and zoning designations of the County of Sacramento and in the case of lands located northwest of Grant Line Road, the City of Rancho Cordova (see Figure 2).

The primary planning concepts suggested by the LUFA team recommend that the County of Sacramento consider a unique, entrepreneurial approach to the evaluation of the buffer lands areas. As the potential

3 The tonnage estimate includes figures for the City of Citrus Heights. Current statistics maintained for the County’s unincorporated numbers have included these figures due to partnerships on the Solid Waste Authority.



developer or development partner for different areas within the buffer lands (see Figure 3), DWMR has the opportunity to enhance a regional public works asset and potentially develop new, compatible land uses that could achieve the “buffer” function and also generate an ongoing revenue stream. These possible land uses, such as resource recovery and reuse industries are not only compatible with DWMR’s recycling and waste management mission but also with the goals and policies of the Sacramento County General Plan.

Any development of the buffer lands must be respectful to the rights and land use goals of adjacent property owners. Development opportunities envisioned for the buffer lands should also be made available to interested, adjacent property owners to ensure a ”level playing field” and a strengthening of landfill-compatible land uses and industries.

Key Existing Opportunities:

• Agricultural land uses – continuation of grazing leases and support for other agricultural enterprises.

• Regional Recreation Facilities – members of the public and non-County governmental agency representatives indicated support for the development of recreational facilities.

Key Constraints: The absence of land use and zoning designations that facilitate resource recovery and reuse industries. The Sacramento County Urban Services Boundary may limit the infrastructure available to recruit and develop resource recovery and reuse industries that could be sited in the buffer lands.


The buffer lands have been evaluated for their utility as potential environmental impact mitigation sites by prior investigations (Wildlands, Inc., 2006) and verified by the LUFA team. DWMR has developed a biological mitigation area to compensate for approved landfill development, and mitigation sites are being developed in areas adjacent to the Kiefer facility.

The buffer land area has great potential for habitat restoration and enhancement. The presence of uplands and low-value grasslands, coupled with the potential water supply provided by existing treatment facilities, provides a wide range of habitat enhancement options (see Figures 4 and 5). For the purposes of this evaluation, conflicts with existing or planned uses are considered constraints of potential development opportunities.

Resource Capture, Recycling and Reuse

The Kiefer facility is a primary disposal location for the County and will remain the key element of the County’s waste diversion and disposal strategy. The availability of a wide range of diverted waste materials offers many opportunities for the recycling and reuse of materials delivered to the Kiefer facility.

Resource recovery industries could be enhanced and incubated by a combination of public/private partnerships. Development of such landfill-dependent light industries would likely require a County commitment to develop economic and tax incentives to recruit and retain facility development partners. One mechanism that could be used would be the development of “opportunity zones” on suitable County lands and lands of willing private landowners. Policy and infrastructure support could foster the development of sustainable practices and industries that capitalize on landfill–associated products such as methane, diverted waste stream and treated groundwater. Potential use of refined landfill-associated products would present an opportunity for complementary industries to be located in close proximity while creating an “eco-friendly” business park.

Key Opportunities: Potential wastestream utilization opportunities include state of the art recycling of traditional recyclables (e.g., plastic, paper and aluminum), construction and demolition materials, materials



mixed with waste, or green waste (compost). Other opportunities include the development of energy production including landfill gas to energy projects, or natural gas transportation fueling stations. The transformation of waste into usable, salable products could offer an economic benefit to the County.

Enhanced resource capture, recycling and reuse activities would reduce the County’s contributions to global climate change impacts (i.e., carbon footprint).

The buffer lands may also provide an opportunity to develop solar energy capture and distribution facilities. The buffer lands offer a large expanse of south-facing land that could serve as a solar energy plant that would supplement other existing and future energy developments at the Kiefer site.

Key Constraints: The absence of required land use policies (described above) and economic incentives constrain the development of landfill-dependent activities in the buffer lands. A unified development strategy that includes land use entitlements, facility performance standards, economic incentives and environmental impact analyses and permits would be needed to plan and develop these uses.

Preliminary Economic Evaluation

As alternative land uses are developed for the LUFA analysis, economic evaluations will weigh the benefits of each option. The enhancement of existing agricultural uses and the development of waste-dependent uses could serve as an economic engine for the buffer lands. The development of new or expanded land uses must maintain respect for existing agricultural operations and practices on the adjacent lands. The buffer lands and the Highway 16 corridor could provide an opportunity to develop and link new and existing recreational and resort facilities.

Key Opportunities: Once a smaller set of potential, feasible activities are identified, additional micro-level analyses will be completed to provide more detailed information and findings for use in determining the economic feasibility of specific land uses. Economic opportunities outlined herein include:

• Ag-Enterprise, Agriculture, Agritourism and Recreation and,

• Resort Uses, including Regional Parks.

Key Constraints: Key economic constraints include land use restrictions imposed by the County Urban Services Boundary (USB), governance issues for areas within the City of Rancho Cordova, flood control issues within the Deer Creek flood zone, existing County leases on buffer lands, site conditions or soil quality and potential incompatibility of proposed land uses with existing, adjacent land uses.

Public Comments and Concerns

Through the course of developing this analysis, public input has been gathered to identify local concerns regarding the use and future utilization of buffer lands areas. Input was gathered in two public workshops and in a series of interviews with local landowners, neighbors and interested parties. The two workshops were held on October 16th and November 13th 2007 at the Consumnes Elementary School.

A number of comments were raised with regards to private landowner rights, water quality in the area as impacted by the landfill, energy needs, and concerns about noise and litter.

Key Opportunities: Various local neighbors were interested in some of the following opportunities:

• Energy development • Planning Forums and Partnerships with the County, and

Jackson Highway

Buffer Zone(private land)

LEGEND

Buffer Zone(county land)

N

Deer Creek

RanchoCordova

80

5

50US

5

50US

50US

CALIFORNI

16

CALIFORNI

99

CALIFORNIA

99

Jackson Hwy

Su

nrise

Blv

d

Gra

nt Lin

e Rd

Gra

nt

Lin

e R

d

Kiefer

ProjectSite

FairOaksCarmichael

Jackson

White Rock Rd

Sacramento

Hwy

Blvd

Sloughhouse

RanchoMurieta

N

Figure 1 - Project Location

Gra

nt Lin

e Rd

Kiefer Blvd

KIEFERLANDFILL



TABLE APPENDIX A – 1 LUFA RESOURCES, OPPORTUNTIES, AND CONSTRAINTS



Waste Management and Recycling Operations

Regional disposal location

Green waste processing

Tire recycling

Landfill Gas to Energy

Appliance recycling

Electronic Waste Recycling

Construction and Demolition Recycling

Waste and recycling operations • Mixed waste material recovery facility • Green waste processing or composting • Construction and demolition debris

recycling • Recycled aggregate processing

Advanced recycling industries • Recycled products manufacturing • Recycled asphalt or cement plant • LEED4-Ready Construction Material

Recycling Energy Production, Energy uses, and Transportation fuels • Anaerobic digestion • Alternative Non Burn Conversion

Technologies • Biomass facility or landfill to energy • Solar energy development • Bio-reactor landfill options for future cells • Liquefied or compressed natural gas

(LNG/CNG) fueling facility Research and Development • Eco-Industrial research and development • Economic enterprise zone

• Fugitive dust emissions • Noise • LFG emissions • LFG migration • Groundwater impacts • Surface water impacts • Diesel emissions • Litter and Vectors • Odors • Traffic • Aesthetics

Public Policy County General Plan Zoning

Adjacent City Governments

Regional Growth

• County as Public Asset Manager, Business Catalyst and Developer

• Collaborative Planning and Potential Partnerships

• “Layering” Land Uses and Values


• Existing and proposed General Plan policies limit the range of development activities that may be considered within buffer areas

4 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a “green building” rating system developed and administered by the U.S. Green Building Council.



TABLE APPENDIX A – 1 LUFA RESOURCES, OPPORTUNTIES, AND CONSTRAINTS



Biological Resources Wildlife Habitat

Swainson’s Hawk Habitat

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle

Vernal Pool Habitat

Deer Creek Corridor

Water Resources

Riparian Habitat

• Develop Habitat to serve future DWMR facilities

• Develop Habitat to serve future County of Sacramento Projects

• Develop Commercial Mitigation Bank • Develop Habitat as part of the South

Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan project


• Competition with other habitat banking projects in the vicinity

Economic Davis Ranch Farmer Market

Dairyland Seed Company

Murieta Equestrian Center

Sloughhouse Inn

Rancho Murieta Lakes

Agricultural Enterprises

• Expanded farmers market • Seasonal crop celebrations and product

tasting events and venues • Agricultural genome repository to preserve

heirloom crops • Revitalize Sloughhouse hop production and

drying operations • Land Leases

Potential Recreational, Retreat and Resort Uses

• Restaurants, lodging and conference facilities

• Spa and wellness centers • Equestrian, bike and pedestrian trails linking

existing communities • Ag-enterprise linked to Sloughhouse

products • Potential additional retail sales capture • Regional Parks • Sports Venues and Outdoor Recreation

Sports

• County Urban Services Boundary

• Governance Issues • Flood Zone • Existing leases on buffer

lands • Site Conditions or Soil

Quality • Incompatibility with

Adjacent Uses • Environmental impacts



OVERVIEW

The Kiefer Landfill and associated buffer lands is located approximately 15 miles east of Downtown Sacramento (see Figure 1, above). The buffer lands area is generally bounded by Jackson Road (Highway 16) to the south and Grant Line Road to the northwest. The Kiefer Landfill, which is owned by the County of Sacramento and operated by the County Department of Waste Management and Recycling, is located on this approximately 660 acre site. The Kiefer Landfill is the main disposal facility for a significant portion of the municipal solid waste generated within Sacramento County and receives approximately 700,000 tons of waste annually.

The buffer lands were designated in the 1993 Sacramento County General Plan to avoid encroachment of residential, commercial, or more intensive agricultural activities into the landfill area and to minimize the potential for land use conflicts between these possible uses and the existing and future operations of the landfill. These lands extend 2,000 feet beyond the permitted footprint of the Kiefer Landfill and include property owned by the County, as well as property owned by private interests (see Figure 2, above).

The County has determined that evaluation of potential land uses and identification of preferred future land use activities is appropriate in developing formal guidelines for a management program for the buffer lands surrounding the Kiefer Landfill. A land use feasibility analysis will identify potential land uses and/or land development and improvement scenarios for the properties surrounding the Kiefer Landfill. The goals are to set the stage for:

• Ensuring the continued use of the Kiefer Landfill to the end of its useful life; • Minimizing impacts on area residents, neighboring properties and the environment; and

• Identifying, planning and developing land uses and facilities that utilize the opportunities provided by the Kiefer Landfill’s operations.

WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING

Development within the buffer lands present an opportunity to enhance existing waste management and recycling operations. This section describes existing waste management and recycling characteristics of the region and identifies various ways waste and recycling can be developed at the site. The section also identifies the constraints associated with development of waste management and recycling activities.

The Kiefer Landfill is, and will remain, the main disposal facility for a significant portion of wastes generated within the Sacramento region. The facility offers numerous disposal and recycling options, and various laws and regulations guide the operations at the facility. Future potential opportunities include managing materials with new and alternative technologies to enhance the utilization and recovery of resources. Advanced management strategies provide opportunities for the region to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and carbon footprint. As with any and all development, waste management and resource recovery opportunities would be planned according to all permitting standards that serve to reduce impacts to surrounding areas such as noise and dust.



Existing Setting

The Kiefer Landfill, as noted above, is the main disposal facility for a significant portion of the municipal solid waste and green waste generated within Sacramento County and receives approximately 700,000 tons of waste annually. The Kiefer facility is and will remain the key element of the County’s waste diversion and disposal strategy in the coming decades. The Kiefer Landfill will be in place for many years in this location and continue to serve as the primary waste disposal location for a growing Sacramento County.

Waste Generation

Waste generation data is important in regards to the available capacity of solid waste facilities to handle the types and quantities of wastes generated in the County. Waste generation is dependent on population and employment and fluctuates with changes in the economy, residential development, and other factors. Waste generation is the sum of waste disposed and diverted at landfills (i.e., recycled, composted). Waste generation projections for the County jurisdictions through 2035 are indicated in Table A-2.

TABLE APPENDIX A - 2 WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS

Disposal (tons) Generation (tons) Jurisdiction 2005 2015 2025 2035 2005 2015 2025 2035

City of Elk Grove 107,251 152,253 197,764 243,276 260,911 372,054 483,197 594,340 City of Folsom 74,635 78,140 93,578 109,017 125,402 156,279 187,157 218,034 City of Galt 17,344 23,466 29,771 36,076 35,815 48,964 62,114 75,263 City of Isleton 750 844 941 1,038 1,831 2,069 2,307 2,545 City of Rancho Cordova 56,473 83,704 101,607 119,510 149,548 190,236 230,924 271,613 City of Sacramento 684,088 654,396 729,308 804,221 1,162,274 1,312,527 1,462,779 1,613,032 Unincorporated County of Sacramento / City of Citrus Heights 705,372 784,483 866,696 948,910 1,763,612 1,969,476 2,175,340 2,381,204

Total County 1,647,918 1,779,300 2,021,691 2,264,082 3,501,398 4,053,621 4,605,844 5,158,067 Source: California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2007. California Waste Stream Profiles: Jurisdictions located in Sacramento County: www.ciwmb.ca.gov. SACOG Projections for MTP 2035. 2007. Projected Population and Employment for Sacramento County 2005-2035.

Landfill Operations

Facility Identification. The County of Sacramento, Municipal Services Agency, Department of Waste Management and Recycling (DWMR) owns and operates the Kiefer Landfill, a Class III municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal facility. The landfill has been in operation since 1967 accepting waste from various areas within Sacramento County. Kiefer Landfill is the primary MSW disposal facility in Sacramento County. It is



the only landfill facility in Sacramento County permitted to accept household waste from the public. Waste is accepted from the general public, businesses and private waste haulers. The existing landfill is permitted under Solid Waste Facilities Permit (SWFP) No. 34-AA-001 and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No. R5-2002-0187 (as updated).

Location and Access. The landfill facility is located at the intersection of Grant Line Road and Kiefer Boulevard, in the eastern portion of Sacramento County, approximately 15 miles east of the City of Sacramento, one mile north of Sloughhouse, and six miles northwest of the community of Rancho Murieta, in Sections 22, 26, 27, 34, and 35, T8N, R7E, MDB&M.

The site is accessed from Kiefer Boulevard and is controlled by a fence and a lockable gate. Kiefer Boulevard is a two-lane paved County road. Traffic turn lanes are currently not provided on Kiefer Boulevard. The entrance to the site is asphalt paved beyond the scale house to the entrance of each active module. A secondary entrance for County transfer vehicles and employees only is located on Kiefer Boulevard a short distance east of the primary entrance.

Landfill Boundary and Phasing. The Kiefer Landfill’s permitted facility boundary encompasses 1,084 acres. The total permitted landfill footprint of 660 acres consists of 232-acre Landfill Unit 1 and 428-acre Landfill Unit 2. Landfill Unit 1 includes the 165-acre, unlined Module M1 and the 67-acre, lined Module M1-L. Landfill Unit 2 includes lined Modules M2 through M11, of which only Module M2 has been constructed as of the date of this document. M3 is currently in development. The Landfill Unit 2 expansion area footprint is set back at least 50 feet from the site boundary, which, along with a minimum 60-foot wide drainage bench along the site boundary, will provide for at least a 110-foot buffer between the property line and the landfilled waste. Along the southern edge of Landfill Unit 1, there is limited setback between the refuse boundary and the permitted facility boundary.

Capacity and Extent of Operation. The landfill is permitted to receive 10,815 tons per day of refuse. The daily average incoming refuse weight during 2005 was 2,103 tons. The permitted average daily incoming refuse weight is 6,362 tons. The peak daily incoming refuse weight during 2005 was 3,734 tons.

The site received 765,139 tons of municipal solid waste during 2005. Some of these wastes were reused beneficially in the landfill, for erosion control, and in the construction of roads and disposal pads. Beneficially reused wastes are included in the tonnage received and placed in the landfill for determination of site service life. Incoming tonnage has generally increased overtime, and it is projected that the total amount of waste to be placed in the landfill, including beneficial reuse materials, will be approximately 840,000 tons for 2010.

The landfill is limited to an elevation of 325 feet above mean sea level (MSL) set by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. The landfill has a total capacity of 117.4 million cubic yards of airspace, which equates to approximately 88.4 million tons of refuse although this can vary based on waste densities that are achieved. Kiefer Landfill’s current operating permit indicates and “estimated closure year” of 2035. Based on the current waste stream projections and remaining disposal capacity, Kiefer Landfill offers potential waste disposal capacity into the year 2065. However, this could vary somewhat based on the actual rate of annual disposal versus long-term predictions.

The site is presently open to the general public seven days a week, between 6:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. The site is open all year, except occasionally on December 25 and January 1 when those dates fall on a Saturday or Sunday.

Refuse spreading and compaction takes place during all operating hours. Soil cover and/or alternative daily cover (ADC) is placed as needed and is typically placed over the active landfill face within 30 minutes after closing time.



Support Facilities. On-site support facilities include the landfill office, scalehouse, access roads, materials recovery and storage areas (for wood, tires, construction materials, appliances, etc.), an inert waste processing area, a landfill gas flaring plant, a landfill gas-to-energy plant, an extracted groundwater treatment plant, pipelines, the active landfill face, and other facilities. The DWMR plans on expanding the site’s entrance facilities including replacement of scale facilities, upgrading of surface water and sediment control features, and construction of a public drop-off facility for antifreeze, batteries, motor oil, latex paint, and universal wastes (also known as an “ABOP” facility). The proposed ABOP facility and existing recovery areas for appliances, regulated electronic waste, metal, and tires are located to the east of the landfill entrance.

Permitted Waste Disposal. The Kiefer site is permitted to dispose nonhazardous solid waste, including municipal solid waste to Class III waste management units at the landfill. These classified wastes may be discharged only in accordance with Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Resolution No. 93-62, and federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D. Special wastes disposed at the landfill include treated infectious wastes, triple-rinsed empty pesticide containers, non-friable asbestos, and dead animal carcasses using special disposal and handling procedures. The landfill also accepts publicly owned treatment works (POTW) grit and screenings and biosolids with a minimum 20 percent solids and no free moisture. Biosolids are only accepted from the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant on an infrequent, emergency basis. The landfill also accepts construction and demolition debris.

Cover Practices. Generally, development of the site will sequentially follow excavation in Modules 2 through 11, with excavation of a cell in the upcoming fill module supplying soil material for the current fill module; however, excavation may occur from any module at any given time as required for efficient site operation and construction.

The landfill uses ADC to conserve cover soil, save air space, and to prevent the formation of barriers for leachate within the waste mass. Materials used for ADC on a regular basis include temporary geosynthetic tarps and processed green waste. Other ADC materials used on a periodic basis are compost materials, processed construction and demolition wastes and materials, shredded tires (mixed with soil), and wood ash (non-hazardous, non-designated ash from wood-fired energy generation facilities).

Storm Water. Storm water runoff from Landfill Unit 1 is captured in an inner perimeter drainage ditch called the "on-site channel" along the north and east perimeter of Landfill Unit 1. The on-site channel empties into the “main” sedimentation basin at the southeast end of the landfill. The purpose of the sedimentation basin is to retain runoff, allowing for settling of sediments, evaporation, and percolation. Any excess water is then discharged to Deer Creek via the offsite channel. Storm water runoff from Module M2 and areas on the northwest part of the landfill drains to Sedimentation Basin B that is adjacent to Module M2.

Groundwater. In 1995, the DWMR installed a groundwater extraction system, including several extraction wells and a pump and treat system. Groundwater is currently extracted from 14 wells at a combined average rate of about 1,000 gallons per minute. The system includes two air stripper towers, a carbon absorption filter, and several extraction wells. Pump and treat remediation began in April 1995, with the objective of containing the spread of the plume and reducing volatile organic compound (VOC) levels in the source area. According to the monitoring reports submitted by the DWMR through 2006, groundwater extraction has removed over 700 pounds of VOCs from the groundwater since 1995, and resulted in an approximate 75 percent reduction in mass of VOCs in the groundwater. Treated groundwater is discharged to Deer Creek under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CA0083681.

Leachate. The DWMR contracts for a hauling service to pump leachate directly from leachate sumps and storage tanks on an as-needed basis. The hauler then transports the leachate to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant for disposal. As part of the most recent Joint Technical Document (JTD) submitted to the California Integrated Waste Management Board on March 30, 2007, the DWMR requested



to be allowed to return leachate to the units from which it came to reduce leachate management costs. Title 27 CCR 20340(g) requires that leachate be returned to the unit, from which it was derived, or be discharged in a manner approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Therefore, leachate from the leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) of the composite lined units at the Kiefer Landfill may be returned to the unit from which it came as long as it is not exposed to surface water runoff, will not cause instability of the landfill, and will not seep from the edges of the units.

Landfill Gas. In 1997, the DWMR installed a landfill gas (LFG) control system. The system includes a gas flaring facility and a LFG-to-energy plant with a combined extraction rate capability of 10,500 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM). The system currently includes 211 vertical extraction wells, 9 horizontal extraction wells, and 10 leachate cleanouts. Module M1 is connected to the system via vertical extraction wells. A total of 108 of these extraction points have been installed since 2002 contributing to an approximate 70 percent increase in LFG extraction capacity during that time period. The lined Modules M1-L and M2 are connected to the system primarily by horizontal piping within the waste mass and by connection to the LCRS for the modules. Future Modules M3 through M11 will also be connected to the LFG extraction system, and its extraction capability will be expanded as needed. Limited LFG extraction is also performed to remediate pockets of LFG that still exist in the subsurface outside of the landfill modules.

The LFG collection system is currently extracting approximately 7,500 SCFM of LFG. A 5,000 SCFM (150 MMBTU/Hr) flare was originally installed in 1997 for LFG destruction. In 1999, a three-engine (3,300 SCFM) IC engine electricity generating plant (KLG 1) was placed in operation. In 2006, a two-engine (2,200 SCFM) IC engine electricity generating plant (KLG 2) was placed in operation. Currently, each of these LFG destruction devices draws gas directly from the collection system. DWMR is planning to make improvement to the LFG collection system that will improve capacity to deliver LFG to the landfill’s customers and improve the collection system efficiency. Specifically, DWMR is planning to complete the installation of a:

• LFG to liquefied natural gas (LNG) system to produce vehicle fuel for DWMR’s dual-fuel vehicles. • Large diameter (30” or 48”) header from the existing header a new LFG receiving manifold. • New blower station designed to accommodate current and future LFG flows. • New LFG distribution manifold to route LFG to all existing and future LFG users.

• New, lower flow, lower BTU flare used to destroy LFG quantities below the capability of the existing flare.

• LFG condensate treatment and storage facility.

Ultimately, the Kiefer Landfill is estimated to produce over 20,000 SCFM of LFG in its peak year of gas production, which is generally the year after closure. This amount of LFG would produce over 40 MW of LFG-derived power or provide other forms of renewable energy such as a natural gas supplement or vehicle fuel. After closure, LFG generation will decline such that it will be approximately 15,000 SCFM 10 years after closure, 10,000 SCFM 25 years after closure, and 5,000 SCFM 40 years after closure. Energy recovery at the Kiefer site is likely to be viable for more than 50 years after closure if the landfill is filled based on current predictions.

Landfill Operations and Recycling.

Disposal of all wastes accepted at the landfill, other than those that are rejected, salvaged or recycled, is by landfilling. The site is not permitted to accept hazardous waste for disposal. Waste is accepted according to the site’s Solid Waste Acceptance Policy. In addition, the Load Checking Program provides for periodic load checking to detect hazardous waste delivered to the site in private and commercial waste loads.



Sorting - Private disposal vehicles delivering wastes to the site are visually inspected from within the scale house at the entrance facilities. If unacceptable wastes are in the load, the driver is notified, the vehicle's license number is noted, and the vehicle is turned away. Site crew workers rout vehicles carrying acceptable wastes to the active landfill area. Vehicles with high volumes of recyclable wastes are directed to the appropriate recovery location(s). Vehicles are also observed at the unloading areas and vehicles suspected of carrying unacceptable wastes are prevented from discharging. If a discharged load appears to contain unacceptable wastes, the hauler is ordered to reload the wastes and remove them from the landfill. Information is provided to customers regarding the appropriate facilities for acceptance of such wastes. The party responsible for transporting unacceptable wastes to the site may be referred to the local enforcement agency (LEA) for further instructions for proper waste disposal.

Recovery - Materials that may be recovered from the incoming waste stream include ferrous and non-ferrous metals, glass, construction, demolition and inert debris, green material, paper, cardboard, durable goods and tires. Salvageable material is stored at the designated areas, as described above. Self-haul and cash commercial accounts with salvageable materials are directed to unload at the designated areas. The tire area is approximately 65 feet by 120 feet. When tires accumulate to approximately one full load (about 700 tires), DWMR's tire contractor is contacted and a crew is mobilized to load and transport the tires to their destination for recovery. At the current rate, tires are removed about once per week. Tires are managed consistent with the applicable requirements of 14 CCR 17351-17355. Wood and green waste recovery requires an approximate 250 feet by 350 feet open storage and processing area. Target white goods include air conditioners, dehumidifiers, freezers, refrigerators, dishwashers, dryers, furnaces, washing machines, ranges/ovens, and hot water heaters. Trained and licensed technicians remove refrigerant from these appliances. A contractor removes regulated electronic wastes from the site. Concrete and demolition debris suitable for construction and repair of the all-weather roads and pads are stockpiled over lined landfill areas or dedicated recovery areas.

Unacceptable Wastes - Small quantities of hazardous waste are occasionally found in the municipal waste stream, originating through illegal disposal from both households and small quantity generators. A permanent household hazardous waste (HHW) facility exists at the County’s North Area Recovery Station where residents can take such items. This program is designed to divert HHW from the landfill. Identified or suspected hazardous wastes abandoned at the site are immediately removed to a secure area located within the white goods processing area, sorted and packaged by qualified personnel, and transported from the facility on a regular basis by qualified, licensed contractors.

Operations - The landfill is operated by the area fill method. Throughout the landfilling operation, refuse is to be placed in piles (lifts) averaging 15 feet thick, with maximum perimeter slopes in the expansion area of 4:1 (horizontal:vertical). Three or more dozers and compactors are used to spread and compact refuse in 2-foot-thick layers on a working face approximately 100 to 150 feet wide by 15 feet thick, sloped at 3:1 or flatter. Other recovery areas for materials such as concrete rubble and green waste (including wood) are relocated periodically due to operational considerations but are either within the permitted disposal footprint or the multi-purpose area.

Other Solid Waste Facilities

In addition to the Kiefer Landfill, Sacramento County has 12 active, permitted solid waste facilities, including five transfer/processing stations, five recycling and composting centers, one construction and demolition facility, one tire recycling center, and one landfill that is privately owned within County boundaries. Table A-3 summarizes these facilities and includes facility type, size, and permitted tons per day. For the short- to medium-term (through 2050), there appears to be adequate capacity in the County for the processing of recyclables, organics, and disposal of residuals. For the long-term (post closure of Kiefer Landfill) the disposal capacity will be limited in the County.



TABLE APPENDIX A – 3 REGIONAL SOLID WASTE, RECYCLING AND PROCESSING FACILITIES

Facility Name Location Activity

Current Tons

per day

Permitted Tons Per

Day Kiefer Landfill Grant Line Road and

Kiefer Boulevard Solid Waste Landfill 2,500 10,815

North Area Transfer Station

4450 Roseville Rd North Highlands

Large Volume Transfer/Processing Facility

920 2,400

L and D Landfill Co 8635 Fruitridge Rd. Sacramento

Solid Waste Landfill 1,140 2,540

South Area Transfer Station

8550 Fruitridge Rd. Sacramento


70 348

Elder Creek Recovery And Transfer Station

8642 Elder Creek Rd. Sacramento


1,520 2,500

Sacramento Recycling & Transfer Station

8491 Fruitridge Rd. Sacramento


1,070 2,500

Fruitridge C and D Recycling Facility

5980 Outfall Circle Sacramento

Large Volume CDI Debris Processing Facility

200 500

Folsom Materials Recovery & Composting Facility

N Of New Folsom Prison Cmplx Off Natoma


N/A 300

Folsom Materials, Green Waste Facility

N Of New Folsom Prison Complex Off Natoma

Composting Facility (Green Waste)

N/A 78

Folsom Materials, Mixed Composting Facility

N Of New Folsom Prison Complex Off Natoma

Composting Facility (Mixed)

N/A 78

K&M Recycling Recycle America Alliance

3562 Ramona Ave. Sacramento

Large Volume CDI Debris Processing

200 1000

K&M Recycling Recycle America Alliance (GW)

3562 Ramona Ave. Sacramento

Composting Facility (Green Waste)

300 1000

Tri-C Tire Recycling 8588 Thys Court Sacramento

Major Waste Tire Facility N/A 10,500 Tires

Existing Policies, Regulations and Plans

Existing policies, regulations and plans that guide waste management and recycling decisions in Sacramento County are discussed below and include:

• AB 939 State Integrated Waste Management Act

• Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, Non-Disposal Facility Elements and Household Hazardous Waste Elements

• Sacramento County County-wide Integrated Waste Management Plan • Public Facilities Element of the Draft General Plan Update for Sacramento County



• GHG/Climate Change Policy and Regulation

AB 939 State Integrated Waste Management Act – The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires every city and county in the State to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element that identifies how each jurisdiction will meet the mandatory State waste diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000. The purpose of AB 939 is to “reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible.”

The term “integrated waste management” refers to the use of a variety of waste management practices to safely and effectively handle the municipal solid waste stream with the least adverse impact on human health and the environment. The Act established a waste management hierarchy, as follows:

• Source Reduction; • Recycling; • Composting; • Transformation; and

• Disposal.

Source Reduction and Recycling Elements, Non-Disposal Facility Elements and Household Hazardous Waste Elements – AB 939 also requires every city and county within the State to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE), and Non-Disposal Facility Element (NDFE). The SRRE describes the methods that will be used to meet the waste management hierarch, the HHWE provide a program for management of household hazardous waste generated by the residents within its jurisdiction, and the NDFE identifies the solid waste facilities in or used by the jurisdiction other than landfills, such as transfer stations, material recovery facilities, composting or chipping and grinding operations.

Sacramento County County-wide Integrated Waste Management Plan – The California Integrated Waste Management Act directs Counties to prepare a County-wide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP), which consists of the Countywide Summary Plan and Disposal Facilities Siting Element, as well as the SRREs, HHWEs and NDFEs of each jurisdiction in the County. The CIWMP:

• Describes the goals, policies, and objectives for coordinating countywide diversion, marketing and other waste management programs,

• Identifies key local agencies responsible for administration, and describes the solid waste system, • Summarizes the SRREs, HHWEs, and NDFEs of the County jurisdictions, • Identifies programs for countywide cooperation, • Provides cost and funding sources for countywide programs and efforts.

Public Facilities Element of the Draft General Plan Update for Sacramento County – This document provides background information for the County General Plan Public Facilities Element. It includes an inventory of existing solid waste facilities in the county, as well as a description of the existing service infrastructure and needs analysis.

GHG/Climate Change Policy and Regulation – California solid waste and possibly greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regulations are likely to drive increased recycling in the state beyond 50% diversion. Sustainable management practices have the potential to significantly reduce the County’s overall carbon footprint and even create credible GHG reductions. These may be crucial to have if the solid waste industry becomes subject to the state’s cap and trade program for GHG.



By Executive Order S-3-05 filed June 1, 2005, California has set ambitious goals to reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010; to 1990 levels by 2020; and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The interagency California Climate Action Team (CAT) was created to recommend strategies to achieve these goals and is chaired by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) Agency Secretary.

The climate change program in California was further strengthened by the passage of AB 32, also known as the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” It is the first law to comprehensively limit GHG emissions at the state level and was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. Among other things, it establishes annual mandatory reporting of GHG emissions for significant sources and sets emission limits to cut the state’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Both the legislation and the CAT currently estimate that the solid waste industry, particularly landfills, is a significant source of the total net GHG emissions in California and should be a major focus of any efforts for GHG reductions.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is currently updating the statewide GHG inventory, including the 1990 baseline and current years. In addition, CARB is also developing the various regulatory programs necessary to achieve the objectives of AB 32, which includes early action measures for GHG reductions, mandatory reporting, and a cap and trade system. Landfill emissions are one of the prime focuses of these potential early action requirements, and this proposed guidance will provide useful information for development of these early action measures.

In light of the passage of AB 32 and recent associated court cases, it is acknowledged that the State of California has asserted its interest in placing the issue of climate change and GHG emissions within the scope of land use and planning decision-making. As such, it has become necessary and prudent to evaluate the GHG emissions and climate change impact as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for any new proposed projects in the state.

However, since the AB 32 programs are still in their infancy and there has been no clear direction from the regulatory agencies and/or the courts on the degree to which climate change must be considered in CEQA decisions, there is no regulatory or legal precedent to guide the decision-making process with regard to climate change and GHG emissions. The absence of specific regulation or guidance is most prominent in the evaluation of what constitutes a significant impact with respect to climate change and GHG emissions. At this time, there is no clear threshold of significance for GHG emissions related to the environmental review process under CEQA, which makes it extremely difficult to render a credible CEQA decision.

The issue of threshold of significance for climate change, both on a project-specific and cumulative basis, is further complicated by the fact that the inventorying methods for certain sources of GHG emissions and reductions are still being developed. This is especially true for landfills where there is no accurate way too measure landfill GHG emissions related to LFG, which represents the single largest source of potential GHG emissions from a landfill project.

Current methods used for calculating methane and other pollutant emissions from landfills have been the subject of intense scrutiny. The major concern is that the estimates make assumptions, which do not take into account all relevant factors that can have an influence on actual emissions. In particular, factors for methane oxidation in cover soils, collection efficiencies for LFG systems, use of United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and other models for LFG generation, and carbon sequestration in landfills are often not accurately covered in the emission inventories and are oft debated concepts.

Currently, the solid waste industry is experimenting with various methods to more accurately determine or measure LFG emissions. Due to the high spatial variability of LFG emissions, none of these methods has proven to be practical, and further studies are pending. In response to the debate over landfill GHG emissions estimates, the California Energy Commission (CEC) is conducting a study on landfill methane emissions and capture efficiencies to improve overall estimation of landfill GHG emissions and reductions.



As such, all resource recovery development options must be evaluated for the GHG/climate change impact. However, many of these options could actually have a positive impact on climate change and create GHG reductions.

Waste Management and Recycling Opportunities

Waste management and recycling opportunities identified for the area include both the enhancement of existing activities currently operating at the facility, as well as advanced technology activities which could result in the recovery of more materials or energy from the material stream generated by the areas users. The various opportunities described below are identified as Tier 1 and Tier 2 opportunities, categorized by their respective level of technology. Tier 1 opportunities include common resource recovery activities while Tier 2 opportunities include advanced technology activities.

Resource Recovery Parks

A unique combination of activities presents itself as a concept known as a recovery park. Resource recovery park developments could be identified and incubated by a combination of public/private partnerships and the creation of opportunity zones. Policy and infrastructure support could foster the development of sustainable practices and industries that capitalize on landfill residual products such as methane, diverted waste stream and treated groundwater.

Resource recovery parks typically involve the co-location of reuse, recycling, compost processing, manufacturing, and retail businesses in a central facility. In California, these types of industrial parks have been developed in a variety of ways and sizes:

• As part of a comprehensive economic development strategy (e.g., Cabazon Resource Recovery Park in Mecca, California).

• Siting of multiple reuse, recycling, and composting businesses around a landfill or transfer station (e.g., Monterey Regional Environmental Park and Davis Street Transfer Station in San Leandro).

• Architectural salvage and sale of materials from renovating and demolishing abandoned buildings (e.g., Urban Ore in Berkeley and proposed sites in Del Norte County).

• Co-promoting of nearby reuse, recycling, and composting businesses (e.g., Berkeley "Serial MRF").

The benefits of a resource recovery park include the following:

• Reduce the amount of wastes requiring disposal.

• Recover some value from the sale of recyclable materials in a "one-stop service center" for reuse, recycling, and composting.

• Make available for purchase other items of value from reuse, recycling, compost, and recycled content retail stores.

• Creation of low-, medium-, and highly skilled jobs in a variety of fields (including materials handling and processing and manufacturing high-quality products).

• Capital outlay from the new business development and the increased tax base from new businesses. • Reduced transportation required to export materials to other states and other countries. • Reduced fuel consumption.

• Reduced air emissions and fuel consumption, as a result of the establishment of businesses in close proximity to one another.



A resource recovery park also helps participating businesses by matching wastes from one company to the resource needs of another. Companies will become suppliers to one another to:

• Decrease their disposal costs. • Increase their cash flow.

• Build networks in anticipation of beneficial trades to come.

In order to successfully site a resource recovery park on the buffer lands area, the following would be necessary:

• Identify existing reuse, recycling, and composting businesses that would like to expand. • Perform an analysis to identify wastes that need to be managed differently. This would show

development potential of enterprises that reuse, recycle, or compost these wastes. • Identify local resources available and adopt policies in support of the industrial park.

• Modify existing county policies that restrict land uses within buffers to agriculture, recreation or other open space activities.

Specific Waste Management and Recycling Opportunities

The following lists specific waste management opportunities that could be developed as a part of a resource recovery park. A detailed description of each of the technologies follows.

Tier 1 Development Options – complementary solid waste management facilities/operations

• Mixed Waste Materials recovery facility (so-called “dirty” materials recovery facility) • Green waste processing (e.g., grinding, screening, etc.) • Composting and co-composting (consideration for inclusion of food waste) • C&D debris or material recycling and recovery • Recycled aggregate processing • Anaerobic digestion

• Recycling other source separated materials

Tier 2 Development Options – advanced recycling industries, energy uses, transportation fuels

• Energy ° Biomass facility or LFG to energy power production. ° Liquefied natural gas (LNG) and/or compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling facility ° Heavy users of electric power, heat, natural gas, which can make use of LFG or digester gas

derived power, gas, and/or waste heat. ° Solar energy development. ° Bio-Reactor landfill development of future landfill cells. ° Other conversion technologies.

• Advanced Recycling and Manufacturing: ° Further recycling/reuse of plastics, paper, metals, C&D, wood/green waste, aggregate, and tires. ° Production of recycled products, i.e., manufacturing using recovered materials as raw materials.



° Recycled asphalt or cement plant. ° LEED-Ready Construction Material Recycling. These land uses would require the development

of supporting light to medium-industrial space for reclamation and packaging of reusable building materials.

• Research and Development/Economic Development ° Eco-Industrial research and development area that would serve as the focus of green energy

technology in the Sacramento region. ° Economic enterprise zone, with the potential for the sale of energy or energy credits as a means

to attract industry and drive the creation of a public/private partnerships between the County and regional research universities.

Mixed Waste Materials recovery facility – Mixed waste materials recovery facilities accept residential and commercial municipal solid waste, and process it to separate out recyclables, such as fiber, containers, metals, and plastic for markets. Such facilities utilize a combination of hand labor and mechanical equipment, and can range in size from 20,000 to 200,000 square feet.

Green waste processing facility (e.g., grinding, screening, etc.) – Green waste processing facilities accept residential and commercial source separated clean yard waste and landscape trimmings. Such facilities typically grind the material utilizing a tub grinder, and occasionally require some hand cleaning to remove plastic bags or other contaminants. The material is then shipped offsite for use in mulch or other landscape applications, or for composting. This material may also be used for ADC at landfills. Facilities may range from 1,000 to 5,000 square feet in size.

Composting and co-composting facility (consideration for inclusion of food waste) – Composting and co-composting facilities utilize organics, including green waste, biosolids, or food waste to produce a product for use in landscape or agricultural applications. The processing may be done in open windrows, in under fabric or tarp cover, or inside a building. The materials are typically cured on site for 20 or more days. Facilities may be 2 or 20 acres in size.

C&D product recycling and recovery facility – Construction and demolition product recycling and recovery facilities strictly handle materials that come from construction and demolition activities, including wood, concrete, asphalt, drywall, roofing shingles, and other inert material. Mechanical and hand sorting methods are utilized to separate the materials for further processing and markets. These facilities generally require approximately 5 to 10 acres.

Recycled aggregate processing facility – Recycled aggregate processing facilities process recovered asphalt and concrete for use in road base and other applications.

Anaerobic digestion – Anaerobic digestion is a process that utilizes organic materials and produces a gas (i.e., methane and carbon dioxide) and organic mulch. Anaerobic digestion includes some pre-processing to remove contaminants and recyclables, and the materials are processed in enclosed digesters.

Other conversion technologies – These technologies include gasification, pyrolysis, hydrolysis, catalytic conversion, and plasma arc. Most utilize the organic fraction of the waste stream to produce either a gas or other fuel for energy generation. These facilities are currently used in Europe and Asia, and plants are under construction in the United States.

Development Considerations – General design and development specifications for a resource recovery park are outlined below based on case studies of existing resource recovery parks. It is recognized that these are



broad categorizations of design and development needs, and that each activity may have different characteristics depending upon future planning activities.

Resource Recovery Park Sizes and Uses (from smallest to largest, with larger facilities incorporating most or all of the features described for smaller facilities):

• 3 acres ° Building materials exchange ° Hardware exchange ° Arts and media exchange ° General store ° Salvage and recycling

• 5.3 acres ° 4.5 acre integrated yard and wood waste processing system on site ° 2,700 sq ft tire recycling on 0.75 acres ° 1,000 sq ft education center

• 20 acres ° Administrative building ° Scalehouse ° Public drop-off recycling station ° Resale facility ° Maintenance buildings ° Landfill gas power project ° 95,000 sq ft mixed waste material recovery facility (MRF) ° Permanent household hazardous waste collection facility

• 590 acres ° Bio-mass fueled power generation plant ° Crumb rubber manufacturer (from old tires)

Employees

• 149 employees including laborers in MRF • 30 additional employees

Utility Use

• Electricity generated from LFG-to-energy (LFGTE) used to power resource recovery park • Bio-mass fueled power generation plant

• Electricity is main utility, produced from power plant on-site, natural gas is back-up, water is used

Bioreactor Landfill Option. The DWMR is currently considering whether to develop future cells of the Kiefer Landfill as a bioreactor. A bioreactor landfill, as the term is being used in the landfill industry, is a MSW landfill that would utilize enhanced microbial processes under anaerobic conditions to accelerate the degradation of refuse. This enhanced degradation can serve to more rapidly stabilize the refuse mass while producing LFG and leachate more quickly and at higher rates. This is accomplished through the control of moisture, temperature, pH, nutrients, and/or other properties within the refuse mass.



A bioreactor landfill is specifically designed and operated to ensure that the enhanced microbial processes can occur in an unrestricted but controlled fashion. The LFG and leachate control systems for a bioreactor landfill are expanded to account for the increased gas and leachate production. When properly managed, a bioreactor landfill is anticipated to allow microbial degradation to occur to the maximum extent possible during the active life of the landfill.

Because of the above, bioreactor landfills are being considered in the solid waste industry as an alternative to the typical MSW or “sanitary” landfill, which is designed and operated in accordance with Subtitle D or state-equivalent regulations. Subtitle D was promulgated on the premise that refuse in a landfill must be kept dry in order to prevent the formation and migration of leachate and LFG, which could impact groundwater underlying the landfill, cause air quality impacts, or create subsurface combustible gas problems.

The refuse within a bioreactor landfill must be kept extremely moist in order to achieve the desired result; this will cause increased leachate generation. Under Subtitle D, this occurrence would be contrary to the intent of the regulation; however, since current leachate control systems as required by Subtitle D have been effective in minimizing leachate migration, a bioreactor landfill is not expected to result in any increased environmental impacts due to leachate migration. A bioreactor landfill is merely a variation on the accepted practice of leachate recirculation, as allowed under Subtitle D.

Subtitle D has generally been successful in minimizing the formation of leachate and controlling the migration of leachate out of the refuse mass. However, the regulation has met with limited success in the area of LFG. The dry entombment of a landfill cannot eliminate LFG generation; rather it just slows the rate of microbial degradation so that LFG is produced over a longer period of time. This phenomenon has substantially lengthened the post-closure maintenance period for the operation of LFG collection and control systems. In addition, it has restricted the potential for recovery of LFG for energy production.

With the enhanced microbial activity in a bioreactor landfill, LFG generation and recovery rates are expected to increase substantially over the short-term due to the accelerated and more complete degradation that will occur. This increased rate of LFG generation must be managed properly so that impacts to air quality do not occur, and the current LFG control technology should be sufficient to manage these potential impacts.

In terms of LFG, this creates two-fold benefit. LFG generation (and subsequent recovery) is anticipated to be limited to a 10- to 15-year life after landfill closure, thereby significantly limiting the post-closure period for LFG control. Also, the methane recovery potential at a bioreactor landfill creates a more financially viable situation because LFG generation occurs at higher levels over a shorter time period, thus allowing for more methane recovery with less operational cost (i.e., fewer years of operation) for an LFGTE facility. In terms of leachate, the increased generation is fully manageable under the control systems that would be built into the bioreactor landfill and required by Subtitle D. Furthermore, the bioreactor landfill is anticipated to stabilize leachate quality in more rapid fashion so that the costs to manage leachate throughout the post-closure period will also be minimized.

There is an additional, and maybe more important, benefit to a bioreactor landfill in that the refuse mass is more quickly stabilized, resulting in increased air space capacity within the same landfill footprint and a potential for more rapid redevelopment of the landfill after closure because of better settlement scenarios. This would allow more waste to be placed into the same air space, which should help to alleviate any landfill capacity shortage as well as allow additional revenue to be generated from the same landfill footprint. For the current dry-type landfills, the recovery of air space occurs too slowly to be of any use to the landfill operator during the active life of the landfill. Also, landfill settlement will continue to occur at a dry-type landfill, well into the post-closure period.

In summary, designing landfills for enhanced waste decomposition has a number of clear potential advantages/opportunities for the Kiefer site including:



• Accelerated and more complete waste degradation, • A more rapidly stabilized refuse waste mass, • No increased environmental impacts, • Limited formation and migration of leachate • Increased methane recovery and production potential over a shorter time period, • Less operation costs over time, • Increased air space capacity, and • More rapid redevelopment on the cover of the landfill after closure.

Waste Management and Recycling Constraints

The Kiefer Landfill and its related operations can have a variety of impacts on proposed development in the Buffer area around the landfill and, as such, present project constraints for the various buffer lands development alternatives. Therefore, the detailed analyses of each of the project alternatives must address the constraints posed by the landfill as well as assess how those constraints will adversely impact the development and how those impacts can be minimized.

Landfills can impact off-site properties through a number of sources and pathways at the landfill or with associated activities. Sources and pathways to be considered for this analysis include air emissions from on-site sources, including the landfill itself; LFG migration; surface water impacts; groundwater contamination; and emissions from mobile equipment and vehicles serving the landfill. These sources can create impacts on surrounding properties by causing health and ecological risks, odor, nuisance, and/or explosive gas issues. The impact from the landfill can also vary with time over the life of landfill development, including current landfill operations, landfill expansion scenarios, closure, and post-closure maintenance periods.

The combination of sources, pathways, and impacts essentially represent screening criteria for the landfill constraints analysis. The identified potential impacts from the landfill must be considered project constraints against which each chosen Buffer lands development alternative must be measured. A summary of the possible project constraints, as represented by impacts from the landfill, is provided below:

Diesel emissions – Diesel emissions occur from a variety of on-site mobile, portable, and stationary equipment as well as from refuse hauling vehicles that travel to and from the landfill. Diesel exhaust has been designated as a carcinogen by the State of California, and it also presents non-carcinogenic health hazards. Further, diesel exhaust is also recognized as a nuisance concern. Diesel emissions occur on-site as well as along public roads leading to and from the landfill, many of which directly cross the Buffer lands properties. Diesel emissions are expected to decrease with time as regulations are implemented to reduce diesel exhaust emissions and to convert more vehicles, which operate on cleaner fuels such as liquefied natural gas or compressed natural gas.

Fugitive dust emissions – Activities related to Kiefer Landfill emit fugitive dust from a variety of on- and off-site sources. These sources include dust from vehicle and equipment travel on paved and unpaved roads; excavation of soils for cover material and new cell development; waste processing operations, such as green waste grinding; dumping of waste at the active face; soil stockpiles and use of soil cover at the active face; and wind blown dust from open, unpaved areas. Fugitive dust can be nuisance concern as well as another means for off-site migration of entrained contaminant. It can also reduce visibility by obscuring views due to dust plumes. The landfill controls fugitive dust by water spray and other techniques; however, off-site impacts are possible especially on windy days. It should be noted, however, that no Notices of Violation have been issued to Kiefer Landfill for dust emission.



Noise – The noise environment in the vicinity of the Kiefer Landfill is determined primarily by traffic on adjacent roadways and by noise generated by landfill operations. Truck traffic and earth-moving equipment (e.g., dozers, scrapers, and compactors) are the major noise-generating sources associated with the landfill operations. Noise levels at the landfills are generally maintained within existing standards; however, off-site noise impacts are possible. However, no Notices of Violation have been issued to Kiefer Landfill for noise.

LFG emissions – LFG is generated from the decomposition of the refuse and is comprised mostly of methane and carbon dioxide. LFG also contains various volatile organic compounds (VOCs), some of which are toxic air contaminants, and sulfur-containing substances that can be both toxic and/or odor causing. The uncollected portion of the LFG is emitted through the surface of the landfill and, after dispersion, can impact human and ecological receptors in the buffer lands with risk and/or odor impacts. The Kiefer Landfill has an active LFG collection and control system to prevent LFG emissions from occurring; however, no LFG system is 100% effective.

LFG migration – Uncollected LFG can migrate away from the landfill through the subsurface soil and impact neighboring properties, particularly from older, unlined landfill areas. This has already occurred to some degree at the Kiefer site, particularly in an area to the south of the landfill across Kiefer Boulevard, where LFG migration has occurred to date. This can present both an explosive hazard and health risk from the indoor air intrusion of migrated LFG into enclosed spaces as well as impacts to burrowing animal species. Migrating LFG can also negatively impact plant growth by impeding root uptake of necessary nutrients. Migrating LFG can increase the potential for subsurface fires and even create conditions for surface fires. In order to monitor LFG migration and assess the progress of the migration control program, the landfill maintains a series of LFG monitoring probes, some of which exist in the buffer lands. The integrity of this monitoring network and access to the monitoring points must be maintained with any buffer lands development.

Groundwater impacts – The Kiefer Landfill, as is common for landfills with older, unlined areas, has impacted groundwater due to releases from leachate and LFG. The landfill is currently taking corrective action for these groundwater impacts and currently operates a groundwater remediation system. The treated groundwater is pumped from the aquifer, treated to standards prescribed by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in the site’s Waste Discharge Requirements, and released to surface water, eventually discharging to Deer Creek. This remediation system, including groundwater extraction wells and water treatment, must remain intact as part of any Buffer lands development. Furthermore, in order to monitor groundwater impacts/migration and assess the progress of the groundwater remediation system, the landfill maintains a series of groundwater monitoring wells, some of which exist in Buffer lands. The integrity of this monitoring network and access to the monitoring points must be maintained with any Buffer lands development as well.

Surface water impacts – Landfills are designed to promote runoff and prevent infiltration of liquids into the refuse mass. As such, they can create storm water issues related to runoff, including erosion, storm water contaminant impacts, and runoff volumes. Storm water at the Kiefer Landfill is managed through evaporation ponds or controlled releases to the regional drainage system. Storm water releases are also regulated by environmental standards designed to minimize contaminant releases into storm water. As noted above, treated groundwater is released to Deer Creek.

Vectors – Vectors are defined in 27 CCR §20164 as, "… any insect or other arthropod, rodent, or other animal capable of transmitting the causative agents of human disease, or disrupting the normal enjoyment of life by adversely affecting the public health and well being." Birds, rodents, flies, and mosquitoes are common vectors at landfill sites.

• Bird species that are attracted by uncovered waste are typically the most common (and certainly the most visible) vectors at a landfill. Usually, they are more of a nuisance than a health concern. The



primary nuisance issue is that large birds, such as crows and gulls, can carry off waste then drop it, causing a litter problem.

• Rodents and flies may be attracted by uncovered waste and flies may be attracted to sludge drying areas, but at a well-run disposal site they seldom become a health problem. Rodents and flies normally cannot survive and reproduce in the conditions of daily waste compaction, soil covering, and further compaction.

• Mosquitoes are attracted by standing water, which they need for breeding. Appropriate mosquito abatement techniques are usually sufficient to prevent mosquitoes from becoming a public health issue at a landfill.

Odors – In addition to the LFG emissions, odors from landfill are attributable to releases from refuse hauling vehicles carrying fresh garbage to the landfill; the landfill active face where refuse is exposed; diesel emissions; waste processing (e.g., green waste, composting, etc.); and acceptance of special wastes (e.g., sludges), which can be more odorous. These odor-causing sources can cause odors at off-site locations neighboring the landfill, and sometimes, due to wind conditions, can be carried beyond immediately neighboring properties. Odor impacts are very subjective and many times hard to accurately assess and/or mitigate. However, no Notices of Violation have been issued to Kiefer Landfill for odors.

Traffic – Traffic in the area around the Kiefer Landfill can be impacted by refuse hauling vehicles traveling to and from the landfill. This is particularly true at nearby intersections or stop signs. If landfill disposal rates increase in the future, additional refuse hauling vehicles will use the same roads, thereby increasing the amount of traffic on area roadways.

Aesthetics – A landfill can represent aesthetic concerns relative to the visibility of landfill operations and the topographic obstruction the landfill can cause as it increases in elevation. The Kiefer Landfill represents a major topographic relief in the area, which can impede the views from the various buffer lands properties. Although the landfill operations are generally protected from outside, and the height of the landfill will not appreciably exceed the existing landfill elevation, it is possible to observe landfill operations as they occur at different locations around the fill area.

Litter – Modern waste collection vehicles are designed to contain waste until unloaded. Waste transported by private citizens however, although representing a relatively small percentage of the total waste received at the landfill, creates a potential for litter, because private loads are sometimes uncovered or at least inadequately covered. This may cause accumulation of litter along the access road to the landfill. Unsecured loads are discouraged by means of fines and signage advising incoming traffic of California vehicle code requirements regarding open loads of waste, and such loads are refused by the facility. Landfill operations can also result in escape of litter from the front face, especially during periods of strong winds. Litter control in the landfill operating area is normally achieved via the daily cover of waste with 6 inches of soil, or the approved ADC. Portable anti-litter fences are also moved to appropriate positions near the working face to intercept windblown papers. In addition, on windy days, efforts are made to cover the waste with soil at an earlier stage of the day’s operational activities. Litter that escapes prior to the application of the cover is collected by landfill employees by hand or by means of vacuum trucks. Occasionally, accidental or illegal dumping of solid waste may also occur in the vicinity of the Kiefer facility, especially during non-operating hours. Employees routinely police the entrance area, interior roads, and roads leading to the landfill access road. The landfill is required to remove windborne trash anywhere that access is permitted.



PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC INPUT INTO THE LUFA PLANNING PROCESS

Public policy and public input assists in defining how an areas land will be utilized. This section explores existing land use public policy, the opportunities that are presented from collective public planning, and identifies constraints to potential opportunities as voiced by neighbors and interested parties.

Agricultural land use and zoning designations dominate the buffer lands areas. The buffer lands located north and west of Grant Line Road (including lands owned by the County) are located within the City of Rancho Cordova. Any future development within the buffer lands area (by the County or by private property owners) will be conducted in accordance with applicable public policies and land use planning boundaries (see Figure 2), including current and future land use and zoning designations of the County of Sacramento and the City of Rancho Cordova.

Public Policy Setting

The Bufferlands Study Area, as defined, is comprised of four categories of land ownership and proximity to the Kiefer Landfill:

• County-owned lands in the 2000 foot buffer extending from the footprint of the permitted landfill; • Privately-owned lands in the 2000 foot buffer extending from the footprint of the permitted landfill; • County-owned lands beyond and immediately adjacent to the 2000 foot buffer;

• Privately-owned lands beyond and immediately adjacent to the 2000 foot buffer.

These lands represent a diverse mix of uses and existing conditions that surround the core of the Kiefer Landfill. And while the County’s General Plan Land Use Element is the principal guiding authority over how lands within the unincorporated area of the county will be allowed to be used or developed, the many other elements of the General Plan constitute a layering of public policy that clarifies intent of the GP. The array of public policy of most concern in this Land Use Feasibility Analysis, in addition to the Land Use Element, is included within the Agriculture Element, the Conservation Element, the Open Space Element, the Energy Element, the Economic Development Element and the Public Facilities Element of the existing GP and Approved Draft GP update.

Characteristics of the areas significant policies are summarized below. The policy layers that cover the area include:

• County General Plan Land Use – Agriculture Zoning and Policies • County General Plan Land Use – Public/Quasi Public Zoning and Policies • County Urban Services Boundary • County Special Planning Areas • Jackson Visioning Area, and

• City of Rancho Cordova Planning Areas.

Buffer Lands and Adjacent County Land Zoned as “Agricultural”: The lands within the 2,000-foot buffer and the County’s adjacent property holdings are designated for Agricultural uses. Pertinent policies articulated in both the current 1993 and approved Draft General Plan Update provide the below guidance.

Agriculture Element Policy AG-3: “The County shall permit agricultural uses on buffers, provided such uses are conducted in a manner compatible with urban uses. Buffers shall be used to separate farming practices incompatible with adjacent urban uses. Any homeowners' association or similar entity within the development



shall assist in determining compatible use. Buffers shall not adversely conflict with agricultural uses on adjoining property.”

General Agriculture (80 acres) lands are characterized in the Land Use Element of the General Plan as: “...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.”

Agriculture Cropland is characterized in the Land Use Element as: “...agricultural lands most suitable for intensive agriculture. The agricultural activities included are row crops, tree crops, irrigated grains and dairies. The designation is generally limited to areas where soils are rated from Class I to Class IV by the Soil Conservation Service, or are classified Prime, Statewide, or Unique significance by the State of California Conservation Department. These lands have at least some of the following attributes: deep to moderately deep soils, abundant to ample water supply, distinguishable geographic boundaries, absence of incompatible residential uses, absence of topographical constraints, good to excellent crop yields, and large to moderate sized farm units. These attributes indicate the need for ambitious preservation policies and techniques. The Agricultural Cropland designation allows single family dwelling units at a density no greater than 40 acres per unit.”

Kiefer Landfill Areas Zoned as “Public” and “Quasi-Public”: The adopted Sacramento County General Plan (1993 as amended) designates the land uses for the Kiefer Landfill facility as Public/Quasi-Public. As defined in the Land Use Element of the 1993 County General Plan, the Public/Quasi-Public designation establishes areas for uses such as education, solid and liquid waste disposal, and cemeteries. This designation identifies public and quasi-public areas which are of significant size, under County jurisdiction, regional in scope, specified by State law, or have significant land use impacts.

Public Facilities Element Policy PF-20 provides: “Property buffering the County landfill shall remain in agricultural, recreational or other open space uses and extend at least 2,000 feet in all directions, measured from the landfill’s permitted boundary.”

Buffer Land outside of the County Urban Services Boundary (USB): The County’s USB in the vicinity of the Kiefer Landfill (see Figure 2, above) is aligned generally along the landfill buffer boundary on the west side of Kiefer Landfill such that all of the buffer lands fall outside the currently contemplated extension of urban water and sewer services. The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) policy instrument, the Master Interagency Agreement (MIA), is consistent with the County’s USB designation.

Special Planning Areas: Where proposals for land uses are not entirely consistent with broader General Plan or Zoning policies, the County Zoning Code allows for the establishment of a Special Planning Area. The Code established a procedure whereby the Board of Supervisors or the Planning Commission may initiate proceedings to regulate property in areas throughout the County that have unique environmental, historic, architectural, or other features which require special conditions not provided through the application of standard zone regulations. The Special Planning Area Zoning Code may serve as a means to achieve special consideration for land uses that would not normally be considered due to existing policies, such as those affecting land uses within a buffer. Many of the land uses discussed in the following sections may not be entirely consistent with current policy; however, the Special Planning Area may be an effective planning tool which recognizes the unique opportunities afforded by the proximity of the buffer lands to the municipal solid waste disposal facility.



Jackson Visioning Area: The buffer lands area is not currently included with the boundaries of any existing Community Plans, Specific Plans or Comprehensive Plans, Commercial Corridor Plans, or Special Planning Area; however the County has included a portion of the area – those lands within the Urban Services Boundary, east of Grant Line Road and north of the Jackson Highway – within the Jackson Visioning Area. The intent of this planning effort is to “span beyond the 2030 timeframe of this General Plan to ensure compatibility between near-term decision-making and the Area’s long-term development potential. This plan will strive to encourage the creation of new communities that are connected and balanced, while preventing piecemeal and haphazard development that can occur as large new communities emerge over an extended period of time.”

According to the Land Use Element of the Draft General Plan Update: “The scope of this effort, … is anticipated to contain a level of detail and policy language that is more specific than the General Plan, but not as exactingly defined as a Community Plan. It would address strategic planning considerations relating to the Jackson Highway Area, including development potential at full build out, phasing of development, location and conceptual layout of land uses, economic development opportunities, environmental issues, and public facilities and infrastructure.”

Notwithstanding the inclusion of a portion of the buffer lands area within the Jackson Visioning Study Area, the context of this Land Use Feasibility Analysis is within current and anticipated County policies – i.e., generally within the life of the General Plan Update - as those policies tend to encourage alternative land uses while at the same time provide appropriate restraint to assure overall land use consistency. An element of the LUFA does concern itself with those years beyond the closure of the Kiefer Landfill that also fall outside of the General Plan life, at least as to potentially feasible land uses, but of greatest concern are potential land uses in the near and mid-term and how those land uses may “fit” with the County’s land use policies.

Buffer Lands Within the Rancho Cordova City Limits: As noted above and shown on Figure 2, above, the limits of the City of Rancho Cordova include a portion of the buffer lands and other County properties west of Grant Line Road.

Rancho Cordova’s Planning Area (beyond the current City limits and City’s sphere of influence): The City of Rancho Cordova identifies sixteen (16) Planning Areas in its General Plan. Three of these planning areas border the County-owned properties comprising the Kiefer landfill, its buffer lands and adjacent properties. The County’s buffer lands properties that are affected are included within or adjacent to the following of Rancho Cordova’s Planning Areas:

• East Planning Area – This area is located east of Grant Line Road and north and northeast of the Kiefer Landfill and buffer lands. The sub-area closest to the County landfill property has been designated by the City for residential uses, both mixed density and estate-rural.

• Grant Line North Planning Area – This area is located west of Grant Line Road across from the Kiefer Landfill. A portion of the designated buffer lands lies within this Planning Area and pursuant to the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan, the County-owned properties within this Planning Area have received land use designations of mixed and high density residential, natural resources and parks designations.

• Grant Line South Planning Area – This area is located south of the landfill and buffer lands and includes County-owned properties outside the buffer area. This Planning area extends south of Highway 16 and as far east as the current Urban Services Boundary. The land uses within this Planning Area as designated by the City of Rancho Cordova include residential (mixed density and estate-rural) and natural resources.



While these land use designation do not affect the County’s use of its property for governmental uses, the potential disposal of these lands by the County would subject them to the City’s planning standards, as defined above.

Planning Concept Opportunities

The primary planning concepts suggested by the ESP team ask the County of Sacramento to consider a unique, entrepreneurial approach to the evaluation of the buffer lands areas. As the potential developer or development partner for different areas within the buffer lands area, the County has the opportunity to enhance a regional public works asset and potentially develop new uses that are not only compatible with DWMR’s mission but also respectful of the plans and goals of adjacent property owners.

The County as Asset Manager, Business Catalyst and Developer: The County is in a unique position as a landowner of most of the buffer lands site and is poised to utilize land uses that protect and enhance the Kiefer Landfill as a regional asset. The County has the opportunity to investigate multiple, innovative, progressive, and unique plans for the site and can evaluate the economic impacts from its planning and eventual use.

Collaborative Planning and Potential Partnerships: The County is committed to collaborating with neighboring property owners and jurisdictions to identify areas of common purpose when making independent land use decisions. This process will respect the property rights of all property owners, including the County, to foster respect and collaboration where possible. Because of the adjacency of the city of Rancho Cordova to the Bufferlands and surrounding area, there exist opportunities for joint land use planning by the County and City, especially in dealing with the disposition of County-owned lands that lie within the boundaries of the city (for example, joint City/County governmental facilities) as well as other County-owned lands that border the City.

The presence of Project Area lands within the City of Rancho Cordova’s boundaries and land use planning area, especially County-owned acreage within the City’s boundary, makes joint planning of these multi-jurisdictional areas essential. The County and the City of Rancho Cordova would benefit from collaborative planning efforts, such as determining the optimal mix of land uses and developing unified plans for the sizing and location of public works facilities. Land use opportunities such as resource recovery and recycling, energy production from conversion of landfill gas, and habitat preservation could meet the goals and objectives of the both jurisdictions.

“Layering” Land Uses: An opportunity exists to layer different yet compatible land uses in and adjacent to the Kiefer buffer lands. Opportunities to meld and cooperatively develop multiple agricultural, environmental, research, recreation, education, and sustainable industry uses at the site will be assessed for synergy and compatibility to maximize the social, environmental and economic value of the buffer lands and its adjacent areas.

Development within the Bufferlands also presents a unique opportunity to address public access and education regarding sensitive environmental resources.

In reviewing the Opportunities discussed above one can imagine a combination of two or more to be addressed within the same development proposal. For example, Opportunity # 12, which identifies the option of the county selling some of its property holdings to be made available to meet residential and commercial demands. Those lands that are within the boundary of the City of Rancho Cordova and outside the 2000-foot landfill buffer lend themselves to such consideration. By attaching “green easements” to the sale of the lands that require future development to meet other stated goals of the county, such as incorporating passive energy systems and a certain percentage of recycled content building materials into both residential and neighborhood commercial construction, multiple objectives are met. Thus the goals of



Opportunities #1 and #3 are met with the potential of meeting Opportunity #4 by making such a project subject to a research project funded by the development itself.

Another example of potential land use layering opportunities is related to the recent proposal to locate a university in the vicinity of the Project Area. If this land use is approved by the County and developed by that project’s applicant team, these new land uses could include incorporating coursework and even research on environmental matters into the institution’s curriculum and even locating biological research facilities within the buffer lands. The location of the physical plant needed to support the proposed educational could utilize recycled materials; electrical and gas requirements met by the extraction of landfill gas and its consequent conversions taking place at Kiefer Landfill; non-potable water requirements to be met by the groundwater remediation facilities; and the facilities being designed around seasonal wetlands in such a way to facilitate the management and study of wetland environments.

Expansion of The Public/Quasi-Public Area: As indicated in discussion above, the land use designation for the Kiefer Landfill is Public/Quasi-Public. That designation is limited to the specific property owned by the County which comprises the permitted landfill facility, including the landfill itself and the appurtenant facilities. The County may wish to explore expanding this Public/Quasi-Public designation to include the balance of the county-owned lands within the two thousand foot buffer, as well as County-owned lands outside but adjacent to the buffer to provide greater planning flexibility and to assure compatibility with the landfill operations. Using the model of an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, criteria for the inclusion of land uses for consideration near the Kiefer Landfill should be developed to avoid approval of land uses that might otherwise impinge upon the continued availability of the Kiefer facility to accept municipal solid waste or that might otherwise be adversely affected by the continued operations of the landfill.

Enterprise Development Zones / Recycling Market Development Zones: The Recycling Market Development Zone program combines recycling with economic development to fuel new businesses, expand existing ones, create jobs, and divert waste from landfills. This program provides attractive loans, technical assistance, and free product marketing to businesses that use materials from the waste stream to manufacture their products and are located in a zone. The zones cover roughly 71,790 square miles of California from the Oregon border to San Diego. Assistance is provided by local zone administrators and the Board's Referral Team (R-Team).

The entirety of Sacramento County is within the Sacramento Regional RMDZ and projects at Kiefer would be eligible for certain incentives. The Sacramento County Business Environmental Resource Center (BERC) is the administering agency for the Sacramento Regional RMDZ and is the primary point of contact for a vast network of businesses resources. BERC offers many services and incentives that can result in streamlined permitting processes, decreased regulatory requirements and compliance costs, increased process efficiency, improved workplace health and safety, reduced waste disposal costs, and enhanced environmental quality. Some of the services offered by BERC include:

• Free and confidential consultative services for both environmental and non-environmental issues.

• Coordinated consultation to help businesses obtain the required permits as quickly and smoothly as possible with no surprises.

• Regulatory/technical services, such as identifying pollution-prevention opportunities, determining permitting requirements, and facilitating inter-agency team meetings designed to simplify and expedite the permitting process.

• Pollution prevention assessments • Market development for previously discarded materials

• Business advocacy services include providing fact sheets, guidance documents, ombudsman/facilitation services, as well as conducting seminars and workshops.



The Sacramento County Department of Economic Development provides a mixture of incentive options that may include unsecured property tax rebates (for a fixed number of years), tax exempt financing, construction of off-site improvements, fee rebates/deferrals for certain capital impact fees (regional sanitation connection fees, roadway and transit impact fees, various development fees).

Public Policy Constraints

Through the course of developing this analysis, public input has been gathered to identify local concerns regarding the use and future utilization of buffer lands areas. Input was gathered in two public workshops and in a series of interviews with local landowners, neighbors and interested parties. A number of comments related to private landowner rights, water quality in the area as impacted by the landfill, energy needs, and concerns about noise and litter. Highlights are summarized below, and detailed in Appendix B. A more detailed discussion of Public Policy issues will be contained in the final LUFA report.

Various local neighbors were interested in energy development opportunities, and partnering with the County. To foster partnering opportunities, it was suggested that regular planning meetings be held between the county and landowners to share current information about County and landowner activities. And, to that end, it was recommended that additional ground water monitoring wells could assist in developing additional data to share regarding the current status of the groundwater plume.



BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The buffer lands could be utilized to enhance biological resources in the area. This section covers the existing biological resources setting, the opportunities for enhancement, and identifies potential constraints and limitations related to utilizing the area for biological enhancements.

The buffer lands are located in rural grasslands of eastern Sacramento County adjacent to a river riparian corridor. Various species of wildlife inhabit the area including some sensitive and special-status species. Several opportunities to preserve or enhance existing biological resources through conservation mechanisms exist within the buffer lands. Conservation mechanisms could serve both public and private interests. In general, only future potential adjacent land uses constrain the utilization of the area for biological resource conservation or enhancement.

Biological Setting

The Kiefer Landfill buffer lands are situated in a rural grassland area of eastern Sacramento County. In combination with adjoining County lands, the Deer Creek corridor, and an adjacent wildlife preserve, the buffer lands provide sources of food, water, and cover for a number of protected plant and animal species, as depicted. The presence of both seasonal and perennial water features provide a range of aquatic and inundated habitats (see Figure 4 and 5).

As detailed in the Kiefer Landfill Buffer Lands Management Plan (CH2MHill, 2001) and Kiefer Landfill Buffer Lands Mitigation Banking Feasibility Study (Wildlands, Inc. 2006), sensitive species that occur within and adjacent to the buffer lands include:

• Swainson’s hawk • Burrowing owl • Valley elderberry longhorn beetle • Vernal pool shrimp

The following provides a brief summary of resource elements on the buffer lands. Appendix C provides a more detailed discussion of habitat requirements for the special-status species.

Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat. The buffer lands contain both irrigated and non-irrigated pastureland. The adjacency of pastureland to Deer Creek provides foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks nesting in the area. Foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swanisoni) includes native grasslands, lightly grazed pastures, alfalfa and other hay crops, tomatoes, beets, and a combination of row crops. A Swainson’s hawk was seen perched on a tree within the southern portion of the buffer lands on September 5th 2007. The foraging habitat is of high value.

Studies have shown that Swainson’s hawk benefit from lands managed in agriculture. Major prey includes rodents, birds, and insects. Grasslands maintained by grazing, allows increased prey capture efficiency. Further, studies found that the Swainson’s hawk was the most successful on tomato fields followed by sugar beets, edge habitat (where two type of vegetative cover come together), fallow fields, dryland pasture, alfalfa, and then riparian. Studies of radio-tagged Swainson’s hawk in California indicate a majority of prey captures were conducted during field practices, such as harvesting, discing, mowing, flood irrigating, and agricultural burning, when cover was removed or disturbed and, made prey more vulnerable (Estep, 1989). Swainson’s hawk actively searched in concert with farm equipment.

Due to the expansion of the landfill, a portion of the buffer land has previously been dedicated as the Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat Preserve to compensate for habitat losses.



Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Habitat. Much of the nesting habitat in the Sacramento area is associated with riparian woodlands. Nest locations are generally within easy flying distance to agricultural fields with abundant and available prey. Deer Creek contains riparian habitat that has historically provided nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk.

Burrowing Owl Nesting Habitat. The western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia [WBO]) is a small (9-11 inches), long-legged owl that differs from other owls by its use of underground burrows and diurnal activity pattern (Mallette and Gould, 1976). The preferred breeding habitat is dry, open short grass, treeless plains associated with burrowing mammals. It is also found on golf courses, cemeteries, road rights-of-way, airports, vacant lots in residential areas, campuses, and fairgrounds (Haug et al., 1993).

The owls usually use burrows excavated by ground squirrels or other species, but may excavate their own in soft soils. WBO also use pipes, culverts, debris piles, and nest boxes in areas where burrows are scarce. WBO are semi-colonial with five to six pairs per acre.

A burrowing owl occurrence was recorded in 1994 within what is currently the Kiefer Wetland Preserve. The occurrence was associated with vernal pool habitat. The buffer lands provide low- to-moderate value for burrowing owls.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat. The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus [VELB]), a federally listed Threatened species, is a moderate-sized, brightly colored, and sexually dichromatic beetle found on elderberry plants within the Central Valley of California and surrounding foothills. The species was listed as a Threatened species and critical habitat designated on August 10, 1980. Critical habitat included areas in the Sacramento Zone and the American Parkway Zone in Sacramento County.

Occurrences of the VELB are primarily in the vicinity of moist valley oak woodlands associated with riparian corridors in the lower Sacramento River and upper San Joaquin River drainages (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1984). The blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) shrubs are obligate hosts for the VELB, providing a source of food and broodwood. Because of the relatively large size of the VELB, it is generally restricted to the larger branches of older elderberry plants (Barr, 1991). There are a number of VELB occurrences along Cosumnes River, and although it is assumed to have limited dispersal range (Collinge et al., 2001; USFWS, 1996; Barr, 1991), the Deer Creek riparian corridor and buffer lands are presumed to be within the dispersal range.

Two blue elderberry shrubs were observed within the annual grasslands of the buffer lands and additional shrubs are expected within the riparian corridor of Deer Creek.

Vernal Pool Habitat. The Kiefer Landfill buffer lands support annual grassland habitats with seasonal wetlands including vernal pools and swale complexes. (see Figure 5) With the continued growth of the Sacramento area, particularly as urban land uses encroach upon areas known to contain seasonal wetlands, compensation vernal pool habitat is in high demand.

The buffer lands contain about 587 acres of vernal pool habitat not including the existing approximately 243 acres of Kiefer Landfill Wetland Preserve established to compensate for landfill expansion. Vernal pool quality and density varies within the buffer lands. The highest quality and density is located in the southwest portion of the property. High and medium density vernal pool habitat account for about 269 acres in the southwest portion of the property. The parcel of property on the north contains only low density vernal pool habitat, and encompasses approximately 318 acres.

Vernal pools provide a general seasonal wetland habitat, as well as habitat for special-status species including:



• Vernal pool fairy shrimp (VPFS) (Branchinecta lynchi), federally listed threatened • Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (VPTS) (Lepidurus packardi), federally listed endangered • Sacramento Orcutt grass (Orcuttia viscida), state and federally listed endangered, and

• Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala), state-listed species endangered

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp. Vernal pool shrimp are small aquatic crustaceans. After winter rainwater fills a vernal pool, the shrimp populations are reestablished from eggs that lie dormant in the dry pool sediments. Vernal Pool Shrimp occur throughout much of the Central Valley. Vernal Pool Shrimp are federally listed special status invertebrate species known to occur in the vicinity of the Kiefer Landfill.

Sacramento Orcutt grass. Sacramento Orcutt grass is a short (one to four-inch high) annual grass that grows in relatively large, deep vernal pools. It has been found within a 135-mi2 area of eastern Sacramento County. It blooms from May to June. Sacramento Orcutt grass is a state and federally listed vernal pool plant recorded in the area.

Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop. Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop is an annual herbaceous plant from the snapdragon family (Scrophulariaceae). It has small yellow and white tubular flowers that bloom from April to August. The plant is less than four inches in height. Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop is a state-listed species in the area.

Riparian Habitat. The Deer Creek riparian corridor encompasses approximately 39 acres within the buffer lands. Within this region riparian areas have medium-to-tall, broadleaved, winter-deciduous, trees, with a closed-canopy, dominated by valley oak. Because of the protections afforded lands within the Buffer area and the County’s Buffer land-holdings, long-term preservation of present habitat values can be assured. However, the creek abuts or flows through three private parcels south of the buffer, and development on these lands may not result in preservation of the riparian habitat.

Riparian areas support the greatest diversity of wildlife of terrestrial habitats in California (Laymon, 1984). This is due to floristic and structural diversity, micro-climate conditions, availability of food and water, migration corridors, and escape, nesting, and thermal cover (Sanders et al., 1985; Grenfell, 1988).

Potential Water Discharge Resources. Buffer lands surrounding the Kiefer Landfill provide habitat for a number of species; however, the one aspect of the landscape that is limited is that of open water. The buffer lands contain a number of small ponds, and flows within Deer Creek are perennial. (See the Figure 5.) Additionally, the landfill has the potential to discharge up to approximately one million gallons of reclaimed water daily from its ongoing groundwater remediation efforts.

Biological Land Use Opportunities

The buffer lands, in combination with adjoining County lands, Deer Creek corridor, and an adjacent wildlife preserve, provide a number of opportunities to preserve, restore, and enhance habitat values. The potential availability of water on a year-round basis from the landfill treatment plant further expands potential opportunities to enhance habitat values even further. Dedicating a portion of the buffer lands to wildlife habitat would be compatible with the long-term operation of the landfill and with elements of the Sacramento County General Plan. The buffer lands could be used for mitigation to offset impacts of future County projects such as road projects or landfill expansion, as a mitigation bank for private project, and/or as a part of the preserve system of the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP). The following details the feasibility of preserving existing types of habitat, as well as methods for preservation.

Various types of habitats can be preserved as listed below; and, those habitats can be preserved using a number of contractual mechanisms. The types of habitat preservation opportunities are described below,



followed by a description of the mechanisms that can be used to preserve or enhance those habitats. Habitat types that can be considered for preservation or enhancement include:

• Swainson’s hawk habitat (high) • Vernal pool habitat (moderate) • Burrowing owl habitat (low)

Methods potentially available for the habitat conservation, listed below, can be categorized as those that generate income, and those that do not. Those that would not generate income to DWMR include:

• non-development by DWMR, • Safe Harbor Agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and

• land dedication to a resource agency or land trust.

Methods that could be a source of income include:

• County Project Preserve, • Commercial mitigation bank, • South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP) preserve lands.

Based on a study conducted by Wildlands, Inc. (2006), the buffer lands offered potential mitigation opportunities for the special-status species discussed above. Table A-4 is an estimate of acreage within the buffer lands that could be used for these species. Depending on the individual species, certain cover types could be used concurrently, and mitigation credits may be applied to both species. For example, upland grasslands preserved as part of vernal pools complexes could be used as foraging habitat by Swainson’s hawk. The potential mitigation or conservation credits derived from each cover type will be based on agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, so the following discussion provides an estimate of the potentially suitable acreage. We have not provided cost estimates of the value of each cover type as mitigation or conservation lands because costs are continually changing.

TABLE APPENDIX A – 4 BUFFER LAND HABITAT ACREAGE

SUITABLE FOR SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES MTIGATION

Habitat Type Mitigation Type Acreage Mitigation Potential Agriculture Prime Irrigated Pasture 182.37 High Agriculture VELB Creation 121.17 Low Total 303.50 Grassland Upland Swainson's Hawk Forage 1,122.05 Moderate-to-High Grassland Vernal Pool - High Density 13.00 Moderate Grassland Vernal Pool - Medium Density 5.00 Low Grassland Vernal Pool - Low Density 6.00 Moderate Total 1,146.05 Riparian VELB Creation 1.53 Low Riparian VELB Preservation 37.34 None

Total 38.87

Swainson’s Hawk Forage Habitat: Because the Landfill still has an additional 185 acres of required mitigation for Swainson’s hawk, converting a portion of the buffer lands to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat



is a logical extension of this use, and subtracting the 185 acres required for the landfill expansion, there are approximately 1,100 acres of grassland within the Buffer lands potentially suitable for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. And, since Swainson’s hawk benefit from grazed grasslands, continued grazing is not only a compatible use, but often required by the resource agencies in maintaining habitat quality. Further, agricultural operations on the Buffer lands would not necessarily be restricted to grazing only.

As described above, row crops provide optimal foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk. The prime agricultural lands located in the Consumnes River floodplain, located immediately south of the buffer lands, could be managed in concert with County-owned lands as a single habitat unit.

Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Habitat: Preservation and enhancement of the Deer Creek riparian corridor offers the opportunity to increase the abundance and quality of Swainson’s hawk nesting habitat.

Vernal Pool Habitat: The density and quality of the vernal pool habitat can possibly be increased by enhancement measures. With the continued growth of the Sacramento area, vernal pool habitat is in high demand. Based on an analysis prepared by Wildlands (2006), the buffer lands offer approximately 19 acres of vernal pool habitat for mitigating potential. The remaining 5 acres of vernal pools only offers a low mitigation potential.

Burrowing Owl Nesting Habitat: Though there is low to moderate value in mitigation land for burrowing owls, the vernal pool and Swainson’s hawk habitat could be concurrently managed for burrowing owls, increasing the value of the buffer lands.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat: The buffer lands offer about 160 acres suitable for VELB habitat preservation and habitat creation. The value of VELB habitat in providing mitigation is probably greatest for County projects and HCP lands rather than commercial mitigation banking because of the number of similar banks in the area. Also, as of October 2006, the VELB was proposed for delisting. Therefore, the long-term value of the buffer lands for creation of VELB habitat as a commercial enterprise is uncertain.

Open Water/Wetland Habitat: Potential water discharge available from the landfill is a great option to utilize for the creation of a wetland pond system or a riparian corridor, but the option of creating a number of small pond/wetland complexes or a large complex on the buffer lands would add value to wildlife habitat and possibly provide a source of mitigation credits.

The landfill has the opportunity to create pond and wetland habitats within County-owned and buffer lands along Deer Creek (on the former Dutra family parcel) and depending on pumping costs and infrastructure, along portions of the eastern side of the landfill. Ponds with wetland terraces could be excavated on existing grassland in proximity to Deer Creek. Treated water could be routed through the ponds/wetlands, and discharged into Deer Creek. Pond/wetland features could be designed to provide a source of permanent pond and wetland habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic species.

Interspersed with riparian woodland, grassland, seasonal wetlands, the pond/wetland features would increase the value of the buffer lands by increasing the diversity and abundance of habitats. In addition, by discharging treated water through the pond/wetland, additional water quality benefits could be achieved. Riparian vegetation could be planted surrounding the pond or corridor creating additional Swainson’s hawk breeding habitat. The association of open water and emergent vegetation could encourage the re-establishment of tri-colored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) nesting, which was last recorded along Deer Creek within the buffer lands in 1990 and 1994.

Riparian Habitat: There are approximately 39 acres of riparian habitat along Deer Creek within lands owned by the County (both within and outside of the buffer). Because of the protections afforded lands



within the Buffer area and the County’s Buffer land-holdings, long-term preservation of present habitat values can be assured. However, the creek abuts or flows through three private parcels south of the buffer, and development on these lands may not result in preservation of the riparian habitat. To assure the long-term preservation and integrity of the corridor, land swaps or acquisitions could be used to secure the portions of these parcels within the riparian corridor. Once in County control, additional opportunities for enhancement and restoration could be realized. When viewed in association with the Deer Creek Preserve located south of Hwy 16, a substantial portion of Deer Creek could be preserved.

The Deer Creek corridor also offers opportunities for restoration and enhancement of riparian habitat. These opportunities include planting additional trees, controlling non-native invasive plants, and expanding the width of the corridor.

Habitat Preservation Mechanisms: A portion of the buffer lands could be dedicated to wildlife habitat. This use would be compatible with the long-term operation of the landfill and with elements of the Sacramento County General Plan. The buffer lands could be used for mitigation lands to offset impacts to future County projects (e.g., road construction maintenance, landfill expansion), a mitigation bank for private projects, and/or part of the preserve system of the SSHCP. The advantages and disadvantages of these mechanisms are discussed below.

Safe Harbor Agreement: The DWMR could establish a Safe Harbor Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the buffer lands. Under such an agreement, DWMR could maintain the existing lands to protect currently listed species at a base level and even adopt measures to improve habitat. However, after the expiration of the agreement, if DWMR decided to develop the property for a use other than habitat preservation, it would only be responsible to mitigate for losses of the baseline values established under the agreement. While this alternative would not generate income to DWMR, it would provide valuable habitat protection over the term of the agreement, and not penalize the agency for increased habitat benefits provided during that term.

Landfill-only Preserve: The buffer lands provide the DWMR with lands that could be used in the future to provide mitigation for landfill-specific projects, or even landfill-related projects such as any eco-industrial development. Using buffer lands to provide landfill mitigation, as was previously done for the Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat Preserve and Kiefer Landfill Wetland Preserve, saves the County the time and costs of purchasing credits at a commercial mitigation or conservation bank, or finding other County or non-County parcels to dedicate for mitigation purposes. Using the lands in this manner forecloses other development opportunities, including development of a commercial mitigation bank, which could yield higher monetary benefits to DWMR.

County Project Preserve: Rather than restricting the use of the buffer lands to only landfill projects, which may be limited, the lands could be used to mitigate other Sacramento County projects, such as road improvements and other public infrastructure construction. DWMR could generate income from other County entities to establish conservation easements on select parcels. Fees collected from the other County entities would be applied to maintenance of the lands consistent with the requirement of resource agencies. By using the buffer lands and a County mitigation bank and assuming the County mitigation bank offers comparable value to lands lost as part of the proposed project, overall mitigation costs for public projects could be reduced because the project would not require acquisition of privately held lands for mitigation or the purchase of credits through a commercial mitigation bank. Using the lands as a County mitigation bank forecloses other development opportunities, including development of a commercial mitigation bank, that could yield higher monetary benefits to DWMR, and increases DWMR workload by having to maintain lands for non-landfill uses.

Commercial Mitigation Bank: DWMR could establish a commercial mitigation/conservation bank to sell credits to public and/or private entities for development projects in the area. This would likely maximize



financial return for habitat conservation, but would also require increased time and costs associated with developing a mitigation banking instrument with the resource agencies, funding an endowment to assure long-term operation and maintenance, and partnering with a commercial management agency to run day-to-day operations.

South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan Preserve Lands: DWMR could sell designated area within the buffer lands to the HCP management agency to preserve land to provide linkage to other “Core” preserves in region. This alternative has the advantage of preserve establishment and operation and maintenance costs being borne by the SSHCP management group, while DWMR receives payment for the lands. This plan would also address a regional need for mitigation lands, comports with General Plan policies, in particular the Policies articulated in the Conservation Element of the approved Draft General Plan Update and is consistent with landfill operations. However, it would likely generate a reduced income stream compared to commercial bank development.

Biological Land Use Constraints

The use of the buffer lands as habitat conservation lands could compete or conflict with other potential land uses. The opportunities and constraints offered by these alternatives are summarized below in Table A-5. Any of the following potential land uses could cause constraints.

• A resource recovery park development would remove or reduce the efficacy of habitat. • Adjacent regional park uses could impact habitat and wildlife. • Development of conservation land can result in migration of species onto adjacent lands.

• Impact of incompatible, adjacent land uses on mitigation habitats and, conversely, the migration of protected species onto adjacent, non-mitigation parcels

Resource recovery development constraints on biology: A resource recovery industrial park (if deemed appropriate by the County and developed in response to modified land use entitlements) would, by necessity, require the use of lands that could be developed as habitat creation or enhancement areas. Development of resource recovery and reuse industries could result in the need to mitigate for the loss of sensitive habitats and to potentially provide additional lands needed to provide a buffer between developed lands and other adjacent use.

Regional Park Development Constraints on Biological Resources: The development of a regional park facility within the buffer lands would require conversion of grassland habitat to turf fields and other development (e.g., roads, paths, play fields, etc.)that would require routine maintenance. In addition, a regional park would increase the amount of noise, night-lighting, and human presence that could reduce the quality of adjacent habitat lands for wildlife. However, there are areas within the buffer lands that could provide adequate acreage for a regional park and minimize the impact to higher quality habitat. For example, siting a regional park along the northwest section of the Buffer lands in an area of relatively low density and value for vernal pools would reserve the areas of high quality habitat west and south of the landfill for potential preservation and enhancement. Also, using a portion of the Buffer lands to the east of the landfill in conjunction with other non-Buffer lands as a potential regional park site could achieve the same result. Again, development of lands that presently provide habitat would require mitigation, which would reduce commercial mitigation opportunities.

Migration onto Adjacent Lands: The development of biological mitigation sites on County property could result in the migration of protected species and species of special concern onto private properties adjacent to



these areas. Development of biological mitigation sites would result in creation or enhancement of habitats protected by the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts. These developments could cause protected species to migrate onto adjacent properties and ultimately limit the use of lands surrounding the mitigation sites. The potential restriction of uses on adjacent properties should also be considered by the County (as the potential recipient of sensitive species) in response to habitat mitigation projects that are being developed in proximity to the Kiefer facility. Federal Safe Harbor Agreements should be considered to avoid acquisition of property rights by habitat enhancement projects in the Buffer lands area. The County’s approved Draft General Plan Update gives direction via policies contained within the Agricultural Element, in particular Policies AG-9 and AG-10:

AG-9: “The County shall balance the protection of prime, statewide importance, unique and local importance farmlands and farmlands with intensive agricultural investments with the preservation of natural habitat so as to protect farmland and to conserve associated habitat values.”

AG-10: “Cooperation shall be encouraged between landowners of prime, statewide importance, unique and local importance farmlands or land with intensive agricultural investments and landowners of natural resource preserves, including mitigation banks, mitigation sites, and wildlife refuges, so that both habitat preservation and standard farming practices mutually benefit.”



TABLE APPENDIX A – 5 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

ASSOCIATED WITH HABITAT PRESERVATION LAND USE OPTIONS Land Use Options Opportunity Constraint

No-action.

Maintain existing usage.

• Low cost • Does not foreclose future options

• Allows current land use and passive habitat protection

• No long-term habitat protection • No income generation • Does not address regional concerns

Landfill-only Preserve. Provides habitat mitigation for future landfill projects on an as-needed basis.

• Habitat lands available to mitigate for future landfill projects

• Reduced set-up costs in comparison to establishing a commercial mitigation bank

• Long-term maintenance and management costs

• Future development foreclosed on Conservation Lands

County Project Preserve.

Provides non-commercial mitigation credits through Conservation Easement on buffer lands for appropriate County projects.

• Habitat lands available to mitigate for future County projects

• Reduced set-up costs in comparison to establishing a commercial mitigation bank

• Possible turn-key project

• Long-term maintenance and management costs

• Future development foreclosed on Conservation Lands

Commercial Mitigation Bank. Establish commercial mitigation/conservation bank to sell credits to public and/or private entities for development projects.

• Allows grazing • Protects habitat in perpetuity • Income generation • Addresses regional need

• High establishment costs • Long-term maintenance • Management entity • Endowment required • Future development foreclosed

SSHCP Preserve Lands.

Sell designated area within buffer lands to HCP team for land preservation to provide linkage to other “Core” preserves in region.

• Establishment costs borne by SSHCP

• Protects habitat in perpetuity • Maintenance costs borne by SSHCP

• Assist in providing habitat linkage to other preserves

• Provides management entity • Addresses regional need

• Lower income generation compared to commercial bank

• Future development foreclosed

Safe Harbor Agreement. • Enables future landfill projects after agreement is fulfilled

• Assists in protecting listed species located within the buffer lands

• No income generation • Requires management and monitoring



ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The Kiefer buffer lands could be utilized in a manner that provides economic benefit to both public and private landowners. Findings from the macro-level economic analysis in this section describe the existing economic characteristics of the area including economic land uses. Potential development opportunities are also identified in the below section, as well as an examination of potential future demand for resources and attributes associated with successful economic opportunities. The section closes with a discussion of constraints to economic opportunities.

The enhancement of existing agricultural uses, biological resources or the potential development of waste-dependent or waste-compatible uses could serve as an economic engine for the buffer lands. Subsequent evaluations of biological and resource recovery opportunities (described above) in the Kiefer buffer lands in the LUFA process will identify, in greater detail, the infrastructure and market conditions that will yield a ranking of opportunities. Two other types of land use opportunities, as described above, are addressed in this section of the technical memorandum:

• Agricultural, and more specifically Ag-enterprise; and

• Recreational and Resort land uses.

Economic Setting

Existing Supply and Development Conditions

The cities and communities neighboring the buffer lands are referred to as the “Surrounding Area” and include the Cities of Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Jackson, Ione, Plymouth, and Sutter Creek, and the communities of Rancho Murieta and El Dorado Hills.

This section does not include specific information regarding the immediate project area and Sloughhouse community because the potential benefits and impacts of new land uses will be reviewed through separate analyses in the subsequent LUFA report.

Table A-6 presents population, household, and employment estimates for the Surrounding Area. There are currently approximately 340,000 persons in the area, with 127,000 households, and 125,000 persons employed. Reviewing existing demographics in the area provides information on existing demand for facilities and services and provides a baseline for comparison with future planned development. Based on SACOG projections, the regional population of the Surrounding Area is anticipated to double over the next 30 years.

Existing Transportation Improvements in the Surrounding Area

Existing transportation improvements adjacent to the buffer lands include Grant Line Road, Kiefer Boulevard, and Highway 16. There are extensive plans for roadway improvements and transit infrastructure improvements in the Surrounding Area and along the Highway 50 corridor to accommodate growth over the next 20 years. Such examples are the “Connector Project” which includes road widening, extension, and other improvements to Grant Line Road.



TABLE APPENDIX A - 6 2007 POPULATION AND HOUSING ESTIMATES FOR THE SITE AREA

City/Community Household Population Households

Persons per Household Jobs [1]

Sacramento County [2] Elk Grove 135,568 51,902 2.61 35,300 Rancho Cordova 58,706 22,364 2.63 29,700 Folsom 63,983 24,496 2.61 28,300 Rancho Murieta [3] 5,042 1,905 2.65 2,400 Galt 23,469 7,275 3.23 9,800 Unincorporated County [3] 7,165 2,708 2.65 2,800 Total Sacramento County 293,932 110,650 108,300 El Dorado County El Dorado Hills [4] 35,506 11,730 3.03 10,800 Total El Dorado County 35,506 11,730 10,800 Amador County [2] Plymouth 1,050 434 2.42 500 Jackson 4,049 1,963 2.06 2,400 Ione 3,534 1,361 2.60 1,700 Sutter Creek 2,944 1,353 2.18 1,400 Total Amador County 11,577 5,110 6,000

TOTAL 341,015 127,490 125,100 "estimates"

Sources: California Employment Development Department (EDD); California Dept. of Finance (DOF); Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG); and EPS. [1] Employment estimates are from the EDD unless otherwise noted. [2] Population and Household estimates are from the DOF unless otherwise noted. Population estimates represent total household population. Households are estimated applying an assumption of persons per household. [3] Population and Household estimates are calculated by annualizing SACOG 2001 estimates and 2035 projections by Regional Analysis District (RAD). Population estimates represent total household population. Households are estimated applying an assumption of persons per household for Sacramento County from the DOF. [4] Population and Household estimates are from a DOF estimate for the El Dorado Hills Community Services District in 2005. Using an average annual growth rate of 3.3% from SACOG, EPS projected 2007 Population. Households are estimated applying an assumption of persons per household.

Existing Master Planned Communities and Proposed Specific Plans

In addition to developing communities such as Anatolia and portions of the Sunridge Specific Plan Area, there are several specific plans being proposed that will increase the population in the Surrounding Area. Table A-7 presents population and housing estimates for several plan areas in the Surrounding Area. These preliminary estimates show that approximately 49,000 new housing units and 24.4 million square feet of nonresidential space is planned in the Surrounding Area. These developments are estimated to house a population of approximately 131,000 people.



Existing Ag-enterprise and Recreation Resort Uses, County Ground Leases, and New Urban Planned Development

Ag-enterprise

Ag-enterprise, alternatively referred to as “agritourism” is defined as “a commercial enterprise at a working farm, ranch, or agricultural plant conducted for the enjoyment of visitors that generates supplemental income for the owner.” Examples include wine tasting, fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, harvest festivals, event hosting, farm tours, and u-pick farming.

There are several existing agricultural businesses and potential attractions located near the buffer lands. Selected familiar destinations include the following:

• Davis Ranch Farmer’s Market: Open six to seven months a year, the farmer’s market sells fruits, vegetables, and Christmas trees grown directly on site.

• Dairyland Seed Company, Inc.: The buffer lands contain one of many Dairyland Seed research locations located throughout the United States. The Sloughhouse site specializes in the growth of alfalfa and corn on 170 acres of farmland.

Table A-8 provides information on existing Ag-enterprise land uses in the Surrounding Area that serve the existing population. Existing land uses listed in Table A-8 represent types of businesses that would typically be found in Ag-enterprise areas but not all businesses are currently part of an area clustered and identified for Ag-enterprise. Ag-enterprise uses in Sacramento consist of mostly fruit and vegetable sales at produce farms, wine tasting, and related activities. Uses in Amador County mostly consist of wineries with some fruit and vegetable/farmers market sites.

Recreation and Resort Uses

Recreation and Resort uses can encompass a variety of facilities and activities. More traditional Recreation uses include regional parks with outdoor sports/recreation opportunities, sports venues, and golf courses.

Regional parks typically are defined as large areas of land preserved because of their natural beauty and/or historic interest. As shown in Table A-9 existing regional parks in the area concentrate heavily on outdoor sports recreation such as boating, hiking, fishing, and horseback riding. The largest regional park is the American River Parkway, stretching a total of 23 miles from Discovery Park along U.S. Highway 50 to Folsom Lake. Other regional parks offer team sports fields and event facilities.

Other Recreation and Resort uses in the Surrounding Area include activities and supporting land uses for outdoor sports recreation. The uses directly surrounding the Site include a variety of options, including equestrian facilities, golf, and off-road vehicle areas (see Table A-9). Resort uses typically include lodging, spas, retreats, and event spaces often connected to these outdoor sport activities.



TABLE APPENDIX A - 7

PLANNED RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL GROWTH [1] Population Total Residential Commercial City/Community (Rounded) [2] Acres Acres Units Acres Sq. Ft. Rancho Cordova Villages of Zinfandel [3] 5,000 545.0 527.0 1,833 18.0 196,020 Capital Village [3] 2,000 103.1 71.1 827 32.0 348,480 Rio del Oro 31,000 2,441.0 1,920.0 11,601 521.0 8,505,090 Sunridge Lot J 1,000 64.8 64.8 369 0.0 0 Sunridge Park [3] 3,000 235.7 203.4 953 32.3 351,747 North Douglas 2,000 162.4 162.4 819 0.0 0 Douglas/Arista Del Sol/Grantline (208) [3] 7,000 387.7 363.7 2,504 24.0 261,360 Mather East [3] 300 41.0 11.9 129 29.1 316,899 Anatolia (I, II, III, IV) [3] 8,000 572.8 547.2 2,897 25.6 278,784 Montelena 2,000 158.3 158.3 892 0.0 0 The Preserve 7,000 303.5 303.5 2,681 0.0 0 Suncreek [3,4] 14,000 1,253.8 648.1 5,377 17.2 187,308 Subtotal 82,300 5,680.6 4,981.4 30,882 699.2 10,445,688 Unincorporated Sacramento County Glenborough at Easton & Easton Place 13,000 731.7 584.0 4,883 147.7 4,073,400 Westborough 9,000 721.1 560.8 3,590 160.3 1,746,880 Folsom Sphere of Influence [4] 26,000 1,967.0 1,549.0 9,979 418.0 5,018,112 Cordova Hills [5] N/A 3,614.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal 48,000 7,033.8 2,693.8 18,452 726 10,838,392 Grand Total 130,300 12,714.4 7,675.2 49,334 1,425.2 21,284,080 Sources: California Department of Finance (E-5, January 1, 2007); City of Rancho Cordova Planning Department, Current City Projects; Glenborough at Easton and Easton Place Specific Plan, April 2007; Rio del Oro Draft Financing Plan, December 2006; South Folsom Specific Plan, January 2007; Suncreek Draft Specific Plan, January 2007; and Westborough Concept Plan, November 2006. [1] All projects are at varying points of the entitlement process. All numbers are preliminary and subject to change. [2] Population estimates assume average of 2.65 persons per unit, according to California Department of Finance. [3] Commercial square feet estimated assuming a FAR of 0.25. [4] Residential units are based on an average of a range or proposed units. [5] Only preliminary total acreage estimates are available. Acreage is based on the project site and an optional northern addition to the total project area. Acreage for a southern addition to the total project area is unknown at this time.



TABLE APPENDIX A – 8

EXISTING AG-ENTERPRISE USES Business Location Description Sacramento County Davis Ranch, LLC Sloughhouse (Jackson Rd.) Sells fruits and vegetables, Christmas trees Dairyland Seed Company Sloughhouse (Jackson Rd.) Alfalfa and corn production Schribner Bend Vineyards South Sacramento Winery and event venue Veerkamp's Pik'N Carry Berries Elk Grove

Berry u-pick, jam and jelly sales, farm implements display

Amador County

Amador Flower Farm Plymouth Garden/nursery tours, on-farm sales, gifts/crafts, picnic areas, classes

Casa de la Pradera Fiddletown Farm tours, farm sales, farmers market Charles Spinetta Winery/Family Vineyards Plymouth Winery, art gallery, picnic/play area Deaver Vineyards Plymouth Winery, winery/farm tours, picnic and events Dobra Zemlja Inc Plymouth Winery, conference/meeting facility

Montevina Winery Plymouth Winery, picnic/play area, gifts/crafts, special events, baked goods

Shenandoah Vineyards Plymouth Winery, art gallery, books/recipes, gifts/crafts, special events

Sutter Ridge Vineyards Sutter Creek Winery, picnic/play area, special events, gifts/crafts

Vino Noceto Winery Plymouth Winery, tours, festivals/fairs, picnic/play area, gifts/crafts

Westhaven Longhorn Ranch Ione

Farm tours, Texas longhorns, show longhorns, team roping, dog trials

Winterport Farm Ione Roadside stand, Christmas trees, farmers market El Dorado County Beautiful View Iris Garden El Dorado Hills Hobby and small commercial iris garden El Dorado County Farm Trails Western Slope of County

Network of over 100 farms and ranches open to the public for produce

Apple Hill Placerville Network of wineries, orchards, farms, with seasonal activities

Sources: UC Davis Small Farm Center; El Dorado County Farm Trails; and EPS.



TABLE APPENDIX A – 9 EXISTING RECREATION AND RESORT USES

Attraction Location Description REGIONAL PARKS Sacramento County American River Parkway: Ancil Hoffman Park Rancho Cordova Nature trails, golf course, and group picnic areas American River Parkway: Effie Yeaw Nature Center Carmichael Nature center, day camps, and fall festivals American River Parkway: C.M. Goethe Park

North of Rancho Cordova

Walking and equestrian trails, rafting, picnic/camp sites

American River Parkway: Sacramento Bar

North of Rancho Cordova

River/pond fishing, group picnic areas, and hiking trails

American River Parkway: Sailor Bar

North of Rancho Cordova Fishing, rafting, equestrian trails, and riparian habitat

American River Parkway: Upper & Lower Sunrise

North of Rancho Cordova Fishing, hiking trails, equestrian trails and staging area

Mather Regional Park Mather Field Golf course, group picnic area, fishing, vernal pools and wetlands, and bird watching

Elk Grove Regional Park Elk Grove Sports recreation fields, swim center, picnic areas, and event center

Deer Creek Hills Folsom Sphere of Influence

Woodland preserves, working ranches, development of a master plan is currently underway

El Dorado County Pioneer Park Somerset Equestrian arena, community center, and soccer,

baseball, and frisbee golf fields El Dorado Hills Community Park

El Dorado Hills Sports fields, nature area, group picnic areas, pool, pavilion with meeting/banquet facility

OTHER RECREATION & RESORT USES Sacramento County Prairie City Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation

East of Rancho Cordova Off-Road Vehicle trails and grasslands wildlife habitat

Murieta Equestrian Center Rancho Murieta Equestrian arenas for training, shows, and competitions

Sloughhouse Inn Rancho Murieta Lakes Rancho Murieta Fishing, boating, and wildlife viewing Golf Courses Several golf courses surround the Site Amador County Far Horizons 49er Village Plymouth RV resort with cottage rentals, wine tasting, gold

panning, antique shopping Amador Lake Ione Fishing, camping, boating Bear River Lake Resort Jackson Fishing, camping, boating Caples Lake Resort Jackson Fishing, skiing, hiking Camanche North Shore Ione Camping, bass fishing Jackson Rancheria Hotel & Casino Jackson Hotel, casino, restaurants Sources: Sacramento County Municipal Services Agency; El Dorado County General Services; Amador Council of Tourism; and EPS.



Examples of existing Recreation and Resort businesses and attractions located near the buffer lands include the following:

• Murieta Equestrian Center: This center provides multiple facilities, including 3 outdoor and 2 indoor arenas, for equestrian training, shows, and competitions.

• Sloughhouse Inn: This historic restaurant is currently closed for business, but is available for future use.

• Rancho Murieta Lakes: There are several area lakes which support recreational uses during most of the year.

County Ground Leases

A large portion of the defined Kiefer buffer lands that is owned by the County comprises land that is currently leased out by the County. For any development options pursued by the County, the length, location, and use of current leases must be considered. Current lease expiration dates range from 2007 to 2015. Leases for the majority of leased land will expire in 2010 or 2011. These large portions of leased land are located on the northwestern and western portions of the buffer lands. Leases in the southern portion of the buffer lands will expire within the next two to three years. Lands in the eastern and southeastern portions of the buffer lands are not currently leased. Current uses of County leased land include some small residences, grazing land for livestock, and agricultural leases.

New Urban Planned Development

There are currently no new urban planned developments in the Kiefer buffer lands. However, there are many planned developments in close proximity to the buffer lands in Rancho Cordova and unincorporated Sacramento County. The environmental impact assessment and planning processes for these proposed developments must acknowledge the continued operation of the Kiefer facility and the County’s buffer land designation to avoid the creation of land use conflicts.

Economic Opportunities

This section examines opportunities of preliminary feasible activities for the existing and future land uses. Economic opportunities are examined in this subsection by first defining potential land uses, then identifying the potential demand for different land uses, and concluding with an examination of attributes of success for those land uses. As mentioned previously, economic opportunities and attributes of biological and eco-industrial land uses are addressed in other sections of this memorandum.

While many of the preliminary feasible activities may be compatible with the existing and future land uses and major fatal flaws are not apparent at this preliminary stage of analysis, this memorandum reviews the potential for varying feasible activities at a macro-level. Once a smaller set of potential feasible activities are identified, additional micro-level analyses will be completed to provide more detailed information and findings for use in determining the economic feasibility of specific land uses. Economic opportunities outlined herein will be related to:

• Agricultural and Recreation and, • Resort Uses, including Regional Parks, • Ground leases and cattle grazing, and • New planned urban development.



Agricultural Land Uses: The development of new or expanded land uses must consider existing agricultural operations and practices in the development of adjacent land uses. The buffer lands area may provide opportunities to continue agricultural production as well as develop new land uses that expand and enhance the community’s appreciation of this industry. Agricultural-related opportunities include the following options:

• Farm and Agricultural Product Showcases: ° Expanded Davis Farmer’s Market; ° Seasonal (i.e., Sweet Corn Maze, Harvest/Halloween, Christmas, Springtime) celebrations; ° Agricultural product tasting events and venues; ° Exploring the resurrection of Sloughhouse’s hop production and drying operations;

• Research, Development, and Education: ° Introduction of an agricultural genome repository for the purposes of research and development

of new plants with improved characteristics. Uses could potentially incorporate the development of research offices and education facilities and the creation of public/private partnerships with the County and local research universities such as University of California, Davis and California State University, Sacramento.

Recreational and Resort Land Use: The Sloughhouse and Rancho Murieta communities offer existing recreational and dining facilities. The buffer lands and the Highway 16 corridor could provide an opportunity to develop and link new and existing recreational and resort facilities. Potential Recreational and Resort Land Uses include:

• Lodging and conference facilities • Spa and wellness centers • Restaurants

• Equestrian, bicycle and pedestrian trails that could link Sloughhouse, Deer Creek, Rancho Murieta and a potential future university campus

• Ag-enterprise development in and adjacent to the buffer lands could be linked to the foothill wine country

• The potential for additional retail sales capture exists, particularly if new businesses create synergy with the existing businesses located in the area

• Creation of an eco-preserve for the purposes of research and education and potentially including interpretive trails, a learning center, conference facility, and other education-related uses

County Ground Leases: A large portion of the defined Kiefer buffer lands that is owned by the County comprises land that is currently leased out by the County. The County is in a position to either continue leasing land for grazing and agricultural uses or once existing leases expire, lease land for other uses or users. This would create a continued rent-based income for the County, with revenue based on the type of uses of leased parcels.

New Urban Planned Development: There are currently no new urban planned developments in the Kiefer buffer lands. However, there are many planned developments in close proximity to the buffer lands. It is important to be familiar with plan areas that are proposed for development near the Kiefer buffer lands in order to assess the overall market for new urban development and how future development within and adjacent to the buffer lands could be affected by land uses proposed for nearby plan area development. Table A-6, above, presents population and housing estimates for several plan areas in the Surrounding Area. While these estimates are very preliminary and the exact amount and type of proposed residential and



nonresidential development is unknown for these plan areas, the amount and location of proposed development projects indicates a significant planned increase in new development near the buffer lands.

Potential Demand for Ag-enterprise and Recreation, Resort Uses, County Ground Leases, and New Urban Planned Development

As a preliminary step to examining potential future demand for different land uses within the buffer lands, EPS reviewed Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) population projections for the Surrounding Area including proposed housing units of several large specific plans. Additional planning and infrastructure investment in Sacramento County are identified briefly to gain perspective on planned growth in the Surrounding Area.

The success of any type of land use is based on the demand for that particular use. Demand is driven by the population base being served and consumer preference for different land uses. Factors that could potentially impact the demand for several land use options, such as Ag-enterprise, Recreation and Resort uses County Ground Lease, and New Urban Planned Development include:

• Population Growth, • Land use characteristics, and

• Transportation improvements.

Population Growth: Based on SACOG projections, the regional population of the Surrounding Area is anticipated to double over the next 30 years. In addition, there are several specific plans being proposed in the Surrounding Area that will support and possibly increase the anticipated population growth. Table A-6, above, presents population and housing estimates for several plan areas in the Surrounding Area. While these estimates are very preliminary and the exact amount and type of proposed residential and nonresidential development is unknown for these plan areas, residential growth from these projects, in conjunction with anticipated growth in cities and communities in the Surrounding Area, will generate a population demanding certain land uses that development within the buffer lands could potentially capture.

Land Use Characteristics in Proposed Specific Plans: New planned communities are incorporating smart growth principles into their community design. Smart growth principals include mixing land uses, creating a range of housing options, creating walkable communities, and integrating multiple transportation options in project design.

All of the proposed specific plans are attempting to incorporate smart growth principles into their project design, including the incorporation of office, retail, industrial, open space and parks, and other public uses into the community design to meet the overall needs of its residents. This affects the potential success of certain feasible activities within the buffer lands because proposed projects will be supplying residents with land uses and amenities within their community. Therefore, feasible activities at the buffer lands should consider the proposed supply of traditional land uses and may need to focus opportunities on more unique uses not supplied within the proposed developments. Smart Growth trends could potentially play a larger role in micro-level analysis in assessing the feasibility of unique verses more traditional land uses for the buffer lands.

Land use types proposed for development in the Surrounding Area can also influence the potential success for feasible activities within the buffer lands. Certain types of activities can create a synergy with existing and proposed land uses in the Surrounding Area, thereby strengthening the activities for the area as a whole. For example, education facilities proposed in a neighboring community could create an opportunity for certain feasible activities to establish partnerships with newly created educational programs.



Transportation Improvements in the Surrounding Area: There are extensive plans for roadway and transit infrastructure improvements in the Surrounding Area. The “Connector Project” which includes road widening, extension, and other improvements to Grant Line Road is a transportation improvement program that could greatly impact the feasibility of Buffer land uses due to the road’s proximity to the buffer lands area. Increased roadway capacity will most likely increase the traffic on Grant Line Road and in turn, increase the number of persons passing by the Buffer. Improved accessibility and business advertising opportunities along Grant Line Road could greatly impact particular land uses.

Other roadway improvements and major projects in the Surrounding Area will impact traffic flow past the Buffer. Destination sites in the proposed development along the Highway 16 corridor and into El Dorado County will impact the traffic near the Buffer. In addition, expansion and/or construction of a new casino site in Amador County could also increase traffic flow past the Buffer.

Attributes for Success

The following sections identify key attributes of successful ventures for Ag-enterprise and Recreation, Resort uses, County Ground Leases, and New Urban Planned Development. Attributes of successful Ag-enterprise and Recreation, Resort uses, County Ground Leases, and New Urban Planned Development vary widely based on the activities available. This discussion identifies key attributes for success for Ag-enterprise and Recreation and Resort uses. Identifying key attributes for success aids in preliminarily assessing feasibility of particular land uses and is a first step in identifying any potential fatal flaws..

Ag-enterprise: Successful Ag-enterprise examples typically possess the following attributes:

• interested local farmers • travel friendly transportation networks • proximity to lodging and retail • scenic landscapes and character

• adjacent symbiotic educational land uses

Development of successful Ag-enterprise sites requires a stable network of local farmers and ranchers willing to participate in a tourism-related agriculture industry, including product tastings and selling, tours, and festivals or seasonal events. While development and growth of Ag-enterprise uses typically does not demand substantial investment in infrastructure improvements such as water and sewer, additional roadway and transportation networks may be needed to accommodate tourist travelers. Transportation networks in Ag-enterprise areas, however, often integrate and take advantage of the image and character of farming and ranching with network train, bus, and truck transport tours, such as the wine train in Napa County or the Skunk Train running through the redwoods of Mendocino County.

Successful Ag-enterprise uses also typically include the integration and development of supporting tourism land uses such as lodging options, resorts and spas, and specialty retail. Depending on the Ag-enterprise region, event facilities are also often developed to take advantage of scenic landscapes and the rural character of agricultural areas. Examples of Ag-enterprise sites with supporting tourism land uses include the wine countries of Napa, Sonoma, and Amador Counties.

Beyond tourism land uses, other supporting land uses can influence the potential success for Ag-enterprise within the buffer lands. For example, educational facilities proposed in a neighboring community could create an opportunity to establish partnerships between Ag-enterprise and the educational institutions. For example, primary and secondary educational institutions could use Ag-enterprise land uses for field trips, curriculum development, and club-related activities such as Future Farmers of America. Post-secondary



educational institutions could partner with local agricultural land uses for research and development, including development of agriculture-related industries such as horticulture and genome repositories.

Recreation and Resort Uses

Regional Park: Successful regional parks typically possess the following attributes:

• Variety: ° Offer a variety of outdoor activities ranging from team sport venues to outdoor sports activities

to event centers; • Large regional draw:

° Offer diverse activities that are able to draw larger numbers of people and serve a regional population base; and

• Unique/Niche Activities: ° Incorporate unique park activities not often provided at other regional parks, such as Frisbee

golf courses, botanical gardens, or amphitheaters.

There are typically two types of Regional Parks: parks with a focus on passive and active outdoor sports activities and parks that provide organized and/or team sports, event, and performance facilities. Regional parks providing opportunities and space for outdoor sports activities and recreation typically require little infrastructure improvements, but do require investment in operations and maintenance of trails, docking stations, and basic facilities. Regional parks with sports facilities, event pavilions, or other facilities that draw large numbers of people to one location at one time, require better roadway access and a greater investment in additional infrastructure improvements to successfully provide sufficient access and utilities to groups of visitors and the facilities in the park.

Other Recreation and Resort Uses: Successful Recreation and Resort uses typically possess the following attributes:

• Proximity: Proximity to a large population base;

• Large Regional Draw: Offer unique recreation activities that are able to draw larger numbers of people and serve a regional population base; and

• Local Flavor: Offer recreation and resort uses that incorporate the geographic characteristics of the site into activities and facilities.

Based on the large variety of recreation and resort uses, successful attributes are often unique to a particular project. However, regional-serving recreation and resort uses, as would most likely be developed within the buffer lands, will need to provide unique activities to draw a regional user base. For example, non-traditional sports venues, like dirt bike, paint ball, and cross-country and mountain bike courses integrate the geographic characteristics of a site and are often successful in areas proximal to a large population but still separate from the urban core.

County Leasing Opportunities

Leasing land provides the County with rent-based income. Lease rates for land vary based on the market for varying types of land use. Lease rates for grazing and agricultural land typically range between $15 and $70 acre/year for grazing/pasture land and (based on irrigation status) $160 to $220 acre/year for agriculture/cropland. There are positive incentives for the County to continue leasing land in and around the buffer lands including the following:

• Continued income stream,



• Minimal action required to maintain leases and actively lease land, and

• Low costs for maintaining leases and actively leasing land.

The County also has the opportunity to continue leasing land but to alter the uses and potential users of the land. The County could promote the leasing of parcels to varying users for development of land uses such as biological mitigation or industrial operations or other land uses complimentary to existing landfill operations. While the income stream from leased land would adjust based on the uses of the parcels, the County would still receive rent-based income with potentially minimal lease and/or property maintenance requirements.

Finally, the County has the opportunity to purchase additional land for leasing. This is a viable option and the revenues generated from rents on additional properties, based on the uses of those properties, would need to be evaluated in further detail to understand the actual monetary opportunities available to the County.

New Urban Planned Development

New urban planned development presents an opportunity to the County to develop one or more communities with combinations of residential, commercial, and open space land uses. By developing new urban communities in and around the buffer lands, a synergy can be created with neighboring communities to create a regional network of communities that serve the anticipated growth of the area. The County has the opportunity to ensure that development is compatible with the landfill and related operations to the greatest extent possible.

Successful new urban planned development typically requires the following:

• A combination of residential, commercial, and open space land uses that serve a projected population base,

• Consideration of the demand by residents and employees for specific types of land uses and the current and proposed supply of those land uses,

• Development of necessary infrastructure including but not limited to roadways and sewer, water, and storm drainage systems,

• Development of necessary public facilities including but not limited to school, fire and police stations, open space networks, and trail systems,

• Completion of the development planning process which typically includes but is not limited to identifying environmental impacts, identifying funding sources and phasing of necessary infrastructure, and jurisdictional and public approval.

Urban development in the buffer lands could, with sufficient demand, participate with other planned projects in the development of a new network of communities, drawing residents, employees and visitors to the immediate area.

Economic opportunities for the County related to new urban planned development include revenue gained from the sale of County-owned land for urban development. Revenue created from land sales depends on several factors including the demand for land based on market conditions and the level of entitlements and physical improvements to the land.

As mentioned previously, additional micro-level analysis is required to further assess opportunities to the County related to new urban planned development. Such analysis would enlighten the County on the



demand for urban planned development and specific land use types and the optimal level of entitlements and improvements to be achieved for the sale of land for development.

Economic Constraints

Constraints represent any factors that could prevent the County and/or other landowners from pursuing a particular use for their land. The following is a summary of potential constraints to consider when analyzing potential land uses for the Kiefer Landfill buffer lands.

County Urban Services Boundary—some of the buffer lands and adjacent County-owned property are outside the County’s adopted Urban Services Boundary (USB). Consequently, the Buffer land and adjacent property is not currently planned to be served by urban water and sewer services.

Governance Issues—portions of the buffer lands are located within the city limits of the City of Rancho Cordova (City). In addition, the City’s General Plan also identified areas adjacent to the landfill as planning areas for future City consideration.

Deer Creek Flood Zone—Areas in the southern portion of the buffer lands may be within a flood zone of Deer Creek. Certain land uses may be constrained or completely prohibited from being developed within a flood zone.

Existing County Leases on Buffer Lands —Existing leases on buffer lands may be a constraint on near-term plans for land use activities in the buffer lands.

Site Conditions or Soil Quality—Site conditions and soil quality (e.g., poor soils, topography, flooding, etc.) may be a constraint to certain types of agricultural or other non-urban activities (e.g., active or passive recreation).

Incompatibility with Existing Adjacent Land Uses—Private parties own land within and adjacent to the buffer lands. Consequently, land uses within the buffer lands will not only be constrained by landfill operations but also by the land uses of surrounding areas. An example of this would be the constraint of Buffer land uses so that they do not cause conflict (e.g., noise, traffic, pollution, etc.) with adjacent agricultural uses of land by private property owners.



REFERENCES AND PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2007. California Waste Stream Profiles: Jurisdictions located in Sacramento County: www.ciwmb.ca.gov.

CH2M Hill, 2001. Kiefer Landfill Buffer Lands Management

DERA, 1998. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Kiefer Landfill Expansion Project. Prepared by the Sacramento County Department of Environmental Review and Assessment

Rancho Cordova City, 2006. City of Rancho Cordova General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report.

Sacramento County, 2002. Sunrise Douglas Community Plan.

Sacramento County, 2006. Sacramento County General Plan.

Sacramento County, 2007. Summary of Existing Properties and Lease Agreements. Kiefer Bufferlands Real Estate Division.

Sacramento County, 2007 South Sacramento County Habitat Conservation Plan. Sacramento County Department of Environmental Review and Assessment

Sacramento County, 2003. East County Open Space Study. Sacramento County Planning Department.

Sacramento County., 2007. General Plan, Public Facilities Element Background to the 1993 General Plan and 2007 General Plan update. Prepared for: County of Sacramento Planning and Community Development Department. Sacramento, Ca.

SACOG, 2005. Final Elk Grove-Rancho Cordova – El Dorado Connector Concept Plan. Prepared for the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

SACOG, 2006. Elk Grove-Rancho Cordova – El Dorado Connector, Environmental Phase 1 Studies, Final Technical Report.

SACOG Projections for MTP 2035. 2007. Projected Population and Employment for Sacramento County 2005-2035.

Shaw, 2007. Joint Technical Document, Kiefer Landfill. Shaw Environmental.

Wildlands Inc. 2006. Keifer Landfill Buffer Lands Mitigation Banking Feasibility Study.

Biological Recourses Literature Cited

Babcock, K. 1995. Home Range and Habitat Use of Breeding Swainson’s Hawks in the Sacramento Valley of California. Journal of Raptor Research 29(3): 193-197.

Barbour, M.G. and J. Majors. 1988. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.



Barr, C.B. 1991. The Distribution, Habitat, and Status of the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle, Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Fisher (Insecta: Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento, CA.

Bechard, M. 1982. Effect of Vegetative Cover on Foraging Site Selection by Swainson’s Hawk. Condor 84: 153-159.

Bechard, M., R. Knight, D. Smith, and R. Fitzner. 1990. Nest Sites and Habitats of Sympatric Hawks (Buteo spp.) in Washington. Journal of Field Ornithology 61: 159-170.

Bloom, P. 1980. The Status of the Swainson’s Hawk in California, 1979. California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Sacramento, CA.

Brode, J. and R. Bury. 1984. The Importance of Riparian Systems to Amphibians and Reptiles. . In: R. Warner and K. Hendrix (eds.). California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impact to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

CH2MHILL. 2001. Kiefer Landfill Bufferlands Management Plan. Prepared for: Sacramento County Waste Management and Recycling Division. Sacramento, CA.

Collinge, S., M. Holyoak, J. Marty, and C. Barr. 2001. Riparian Habitat Fragmentation and Population Persistence of the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Northern California. Biological Conservation 199 (1): 103-113.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, FWS-OBS-79/31. Washington, D.C.

Craighead, J. and F. Craighead. 1956. Hawks, Owls and Wildlife. Stackpole Company, Harrisburg, PA.

Detrich, P. 1986. Status of the Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in the Upper Sacramento Valley -- Shasta and Tehama Counties, California. California State University, Chico.

Dunkle, S. 1977. Swainson’s Hawks on the Laramie Plains, Wyoming. Auk 94: 65-71.

England, A.S., M. Bechard, and C. Houston. 1997. Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In: The Birds of North America, No. 265 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Eriksen, C.H., and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy Shrimps of California's Puddles, Pools, and Playas. Mad River Press, Eureka, CA.

Estep, J. 1989. Biology, Movements, and Habitat Relationships of the Swainson’s Hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-87. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division. Sacramento, CA.



Estep, J. and S. Teresa. 1992. Regional Conservation Planning for Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. Pgs. 775-789 in D.R. McCullough, R.H. Barrett (eds.). Wildlife 2001: Populations. New York. Elsevier Applied Science.

Feeney, L. 1992. Site Fidelity in Burrowing Owl. Unpublished paper presented at the Raptor Research Annual Meeting, November 1992, Seattle, WA.

Gaines, D. 1974. A new look at the nesting riparian avifauna of the Sacramento Valley, California. West. Birds 5: 61-80.

Grenfell, W. 1988. Valley Foothill Riparian. In: K. Mayer and W. Laudenslayer, Jr. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, CA..

Grenfell, W. 1988. Valley Foothill Riparian. In: K. Mayer and W. Laudenslayer, Jr. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, CA.

Haug, E., B. Millsap, and M. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In: The Birds of North America, No. 61 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences, Washington, D.C., and The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Hickman, James C. 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Heritage Program. Sacramento, CA.

Johnson, D.L. 1982. Birds of the American River Parkway: An Annotated List. County of Sacramento, Department of Parks and Recreation. Sacramento, CA.

Laymon, S. 1984. Riparian Bird Community Structure and Dynamics: Dog Island, Red Bluff, California. In: R. Warner and K. Hendrix (eds.). California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Mallette, R. and G. Gould. 1978. Raptors of California. California Department of Fish and Game. Pamphlet.

Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, CA.

Moreno, L. 1994. A Study of Nest Distribution, Nest Site Preferences, Foraging Habitat Availability, Disturbance, and Population Productivity of Swainson’s Hawks Along the Sacramento River. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of California. Davis, CA.

Newton, I. 1979. Population Ecology of Raptors. Buteo Books. Vermillion, SD.

Radamacher, Richard, 2007. Sacramento County Department of Environmental Review and Assessment. Meeting with Padre and ESP staff on 9/12/07 to discuss South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan.

Remsen, J. 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report No. 78-1. Sacramento, CA.

Rich, T. 1984. Monitoring Burrowing Owl Populations: Implications of Burrow Re-use. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12: 178-180.



Sanders, S. E. Beedy, R. Holland, V. Dains, and A. Sands. 1985. Vegetation and Wildlife Resources Along the Lower American River and Their Relationship to Instream Flows. Prepared for McDonough, Holland and Allen. Unpubl. Sacramento, CA.

Sawyer, J. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.

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

Smith D. and J. Murphy. 1973. Breeding Ecology of Raptors in the Eastern Great Basin of Utah. Brigham Young University Bull. Of Biol. Sci. 18: 1-76.

Tattersall, Eric. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Telephone conversation with Richard Meredith of Padre Associates, Inc to discuss habitat preservation options.

Trapp, G., G. Linck, and D. Whister. 1984. The Status of Ecological Research on the Mammal Fauna of California’s Central Valley Riparian Communities. In: R. Warner and K. Hendrix (eds.). California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Trulio, L. 1998. Efforts to Protect and Restore the Burrowing Owl in the South Bay Area. Tideline 18: 1-3.

Tugel, A. 1993. Soil Survey of Sacramento County, California. U.S. Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Valley Longhorn Beetle Recovery Plan. Region 1. Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Draft Management Guidelines for the Swainson’s Hawk. Region 1, Portland OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Programmatic Formal Consultation Permitting Projects with Relatively Small Effects on the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Within the Jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field Office, California (Corps Files #199600065).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants; Final Rule. Portland, Oregon

Wildlands, Inc. 2006. Kiefer Landfill Bufferlands Mitigation Banking Feasibility Study. Prepared for: Sacramento County Department of Waste Management and Recycling. Sacrament, CA.

Woodbridge, B. 1998. California Partners in Flight Riparian Bird Conservation Plan for the Swainson’s Hawk. Point Reyes Bird Observatory. Point Reyes, California

http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/species/riparian/swhaacct.html.

Zarn, M. 1974. Burrowing Owl. Habitat Management Series for Unique or Endangered Species, Report No. 11. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.



Zeiner, D., W. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California’s Wildlife, Volume II: Birds. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationship System, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.


Kiefer Buffer Lands LUFA Final Report Appendix B Summary of Workshop Comments Page B-1 of 5

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP COMMENTS

KIEFER BUFFER LANDS PUBLIC WORKSHOP COMMENTS #1 - OCTOBER 16, 2007


• What is the motivation for LUFA at this time? • Is there a potential use of buffer lands for county buildings? • Managed park – don’t leave as open space. • Earthen dam on Kiefer blvd – concerned about flooding. • Develop NW potion of bufferlands. • Fields (ball fields) recreational areas for use by the school (university). • Conduct additional bio-surveys on County land (wetland delineation etc).

• How can County consider the biological options without conducting more surveys, and why haven’t better studies been conducted through the past year?

• Develop private college. • Develop shooting facility. • More rapid progress on the process (any progress). • Use County lands for money. • Park/open space or a combination of both. • Use land for anything that will generate income for the County. • Use NW corner of County property for regional park (access for Grantline).

Public Policy

• USB no longer relevant. • County approved land uses. • Now measured to city bound buffer. • Is the portion right below (SW) Jackson owned by the County? • No studies on wetland and vernal pools been done on County SW lands.

• Changing County land use for the landfill buffer are new land uses, why can’t land owners outside the buffer area change their land use in the same manner (benefit).

• Discussion should be broader to include issues above as well. • Why are we talking about trails/OS going through private property? • Method used, County doesn’t allow you to do anything with land. • Selling is the only profitable opportunity for landowners, so it is a taking in reverse? • Cemetery – Want uses to remain quiet and calm to not disturb cemetery uses. • Extra traffic would be very detrimental



Economic Resources

Roberta Tanner • Sloughhouse Cemetery needs to be protected.

Judy Waegell • Plans sound like they’re in competition with Davis Ranch. It shouldn’t be that way.

Jan James • Unlikely that hop production can be revitalized. No market. Excessive cost & labor & other

reasons. Maybe designer hops harvested ‘the old way’. • Levy is in bad shape. Retail bldgs shouldn’t be put down on the flood plain. • Opposes anything that expands landfill activity. Landfill pollutes water that washes into creek. • Job creation at landfill is not a good idea. What kinds of jobs are those?

Mindy C • The nature of the land must be considered: gasses emitted, water pollution. Doesn’t think anything

should be gown in buffer. • Most of the opportunities are growth inducing except habitat conservation.

George W • There should be more monitoring wells. • Preservation of natural aquifers. • Concerned about impact of development on other properties.

Ruth McDowell – SMUD • It would be unfair for the county to allow housing to encroach

Anon. • How much money do these uses generate for County. • What are other developments around landfills (urban/sub) nationwide. • I’m jaded, it doesn’t seem to matter how many meeting I go to, I have 20 years of meetings. • Should development be limited in the buffer land. • Compatible land uses around new development along Gantline/Rancho

Waste Management and Eco Industrial

• Are you considering renewable energy options? • What impacts do you see on the public side? • Is green waste part of this idea? • What about odors? • How big is this area and will it fit everything planned? • Is the city looking at this a way to make income? • South side of Kiefer reasonable spot to put something as a buffer? • What are the biggest constraints?



• Is traffic an issue? • Where they put something depends on where they decide to put buffers. • Will there be an eco-park? • Want to see alternative energy and the south side. • What services are at the landfill right now? • What is the electricity generated used for? • We need more energy. • What are the current landfill-to-gas plans? • It all comes down to finances. • Has there been a cost feasibly study analysis done for landfill gas to energy? • Solar panels should be part of the plan. • Concerned with anything build around buffer. • Doesn’t agree with the location of the landfill. • Concerned about aquifers. • Will there be a lot of noise generated? • Any activities should not impact the serenity of the historic cemetery during the day. • Are any resources currently being recycled? • Should put waste concrete along levy? • Would like to see the whole place close down. • Is this a consolidation of other dumps • With all the current development in this area, should the LF be moved farther away? • It is our (land owners) back yard. • Where are the monitoring wells? • Can you put the monitoring wells far from the LF footprint? • Since there are so many sources of pollution in this area, how can you tell the source of pollution? • Why did you tear down the old Lowell place? • Now there is no one to keep out trespassers on other side of the creek. • Methane is an energy source. • How efficient is your methane? • Concerned about what’s going in and out of the landfill? • Concerned about the economics of waste management? • More recycling is needed. • Concerned that options might draw more garbage. • Concerned about illegal dumping. • The better the landfill is run, the better it is for all.



KIEFER BUFFER LANDS PUBLIC WORKSHOP COMMENTS #2 - NOVEMBER 13, 2007

Waste Management- Resource Recovery

• Will the potential operations cause dust? Will they operate 24 hours a day?

• Are you aware that during the process to site and open the Kiefer landfill, local landowners were told that it would be operating on a temporary basis (20 years) and then turned into a park?

• What is the projected life of the landfill? Will the local residents be told something different in 40 years?

• What is DWMR doing about monitoring wells around the landfill? There are existing groundwater contamination issues. DWMR needs to be aware of the following concerns: ° Make sure that local residents don’t drink the contaminated water- Specifically the housing

developments along Grantline Road ° How deep are the monitoring wells ° The contamination plume has been pushed out from it’s originally identified boundaries due to

the large sand layer in the local geology ° Need to treat Kiefer landfill groundwater for many things, but keep local residents in mind ° Concern that the expansion of Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova into the potentially

contaminated groundwater plume will only make matters worse ° Test wells are needed (Monitoring wells) and the results need to be made available to residents ° Will an EIR report be done with any potential new development/commercial enterprise

(associated with Resource recovery) • What kind of traffic impacts will there be on Kiefer Boulevard? What about the addition of

employee generated traffic? What about outside traffic from adjacent cities/counties? Will this be allowed? Is DWMR worried about other counties using the landfill? How many trucks a day currently visit the landfill?

• If Kiefer Boulevard is expanded to accommodate this new land use, will it be raised? If so, there will be flooding issues for the local residents. They were aware of an impact from the recent re-paving of a section of Kiefer (raised 2 inches) and are concerned about any additional impacts. Will additional flood control be investigated?

• Where will any potential monies generated by new land uses be used What is the economic impact to local residents? Will the resource recovery efforts bring in more money locally?

• Has DWMR considered using a rail transfer point as a means of reducing traffic on Jackson Hwy?

• Would it be better to sort the waste as satellite stations, rather than at the landfill? The current process is time consuming and needs improvement.

Biology

• Will mitigation banking be available to other jurisdictions? Or only County of Sacramento projects?

• How many acres of the footprint will need preservation? How many acres are available for preservation?

• Are we looking at the area from Grantline northward for preservation?

• Some concern about what areas will be preserved- re: county owned property or just the buffer lands?



Economics- Land Use

• Agri-tourism- this activity requires groundwater. If DWMR isn’t sure what is in the groundwater, this could be a serious issue. The contaminated groundwater needs to be dealt with before anything happens.

• If restrictions to private land owners occur as a result of any of the proposed buffer lands activities, will the local landowners be compensated? There needs to be a formal plan for private property owners – if a rezoning is required, local private land owners need to be treated fairly.

• What about a golf course?

• Golf courses use too much water- with the groundwater contamination issues, this is a problem. A golf course is a bad idea.

• Regarding using the land as mitigation- have we considered using the landfill itself (once the landfill has closed) rather than spoil the land on the side?

• Since DWMR has solved the methane gas problem, maybe the county could build a park on top of the closed landfill?

• The Board of Supervisors have talked about a trail system in this area- why aren’t we mentioning it in our analysis?

• Confusion exists about Rancho Cordova city limits and the urban services boundary. ° Can we clarify the buffer zone vs. the landfill footprint ° When Rancho Cordova incorporated, why didn’t the urban service line move? ° What is the difference between the sphere of influence and the urban service boundary?

• Is the County exempt from land use approvals by Rancho Cordova on County owned lands within the City limit?

• How many changes and staff reviews will the LUFA go through? What is the approval process for the LUFA? Who is included in the approval process? Who should we contact with questions/concerns? What are staff roles? Concern about the report disappearing into the “black hole of downtown.”

• Will the report be sent to the neighbors? Will they have access to it?


Kiefer Buffer Lands LUFA Final Report Appendix C Biological Resources Page C-1 of 5

APPENDIX C BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat

Foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swanisoni) includes native grasslands, lightly grazed pastures, alfalfa and other hay crops, tomatoes, beets, and a combination of row crops. Telemetry studies in the mid-valley area indicate that the feeding habitat of Swainson’s hawk was, in order of preference, alfalfa, disced fields, fallow fields, dry-land pasture, beets, tomatoes, irrigated pasture, grains, other row crops, and other agricultural lands (Estep, 1989). Unsuitable foraging habitat includes orchards, vineyards, flood rice fields, and cotton crops in which the vegetative cover precludes sighting of prey (CDFG, 1990). Swainson’s hawks are sensitive to habitat fragmentation when foraging and will avoid parcels subdivided to less than 10 acres even if suitable prey is present (Estep and Teresa, 1992). The CDFG considers habitat within one mile of the nest site as more valuable foraging habitat than habitat at greater distances.

Swainson’s hawk are typically insectivorous, but switch to vertebrate prey during breeding. Major prey includes rodents (squirrels, mice and gophers), birds (ring-neck pheasant, mourning dove), and insects (grasshoppers and crickets). Foraging range is dependent on the abundance and availability of prey. In Central California, foraging range varied from 30 to 16,000 acres, with distances up to 18 miles from the nest (Estep, 1989). In the Sacramento area, Babcock (1995) reported home ranges from 1,790 to 18,925 acres, with a maximum foraging distance of approximately 14 miles. These numbers differ considerably from home range studies conducted in other areas of the western U.S. Craighead and Craighead (1956) recorded maximum foraging areas in Wyoming ranging between 180 to 1,056 acres. Newton (1979) compiled data on separate studies conducted in Utah (Smith and Murphy, 1973) and Wyoming (Dunkle, 1977; Craighead and Craighead, 1956), and reported that the home range Swainson’s hawk nesting pairs averaged between 1,200 and 1,600 acres (1.2-1.5 mi2/pair). Studies conducted by Bechard (1982) in Washington found Swainson’s hawk home ranges were between 1,500 and 3,200 acres. Bechard (1982) also reported a significant positive correlation between the size of the home range and the amount of cultivated land it contained. Those home ranges with uncultivated pasture or left fallow presumably increased prey vulnerability and decreased the area required to forage. Estep (1989) reported that Swainson’s hawk aggressively defends only a small area around nests from conspecifics and other buteos. The defended territory for two ranges was 65 acres in a woodland territory and 995 acres in a more open territory.

Trapping studies conducted by Estep (1989) found that tomato fields had the highest capture rates of small mammals (22.1 percent), followed by sugar beets (19.9 percent), edge habitat (19.6 percent), fallow fields (10.3 percent), dryland pasture (10.3 percent), alfalfa (7.2 percent), and riparian (3.7 percent). Bechard (1982) noted the hunting sites of Swainson’s hawk in Washington State were a function of prey vulnerability rather than prey density. Field observations of radio-tagged Swainson’s hawk in California indicate that over 50 percent of observed foraging time and 73 percent of successful prey captures were conducted during certain field practices, such as harvesting, discing, mowing, flood irrigating, and agricultural burning, in which cover was removed or prey otherwise disturbed and, thus, more vulnerable to predation (Estep, 1989). Swainson’s hawk actively searched in concert with farm equipment. Unless field activities were being conducted, Swainson’s hawk would spend little time on a single field before moving on in search of prey. This highly active foraging behavior results in birds traveling as far as 18 miles in search of food (Estep, 1989).

The USFWS (1986) noted that abundance of food is the most important factor determining the abundance of hawks. In northern California, Woodbridge (1983) reported that Swainson’s hawk prey consisted of small mammals (60 percent), birds (25 percent), and reptiles and insects (14 percent), with Belding’s ground squirrel comprising the greatest biomass. In the mid-Central Valley area, pellet analysis conducted by Estep (1989)



found that small mammals accounted for 21.7 percent of total prey and 43.5 percent of total biomass; birds constituted 10.8 percent of total prey and 49.8 percent of total biomass; reptiles and amphibians accounted for 0.6 percent of total prey and 1.3 percent of total biomass; and invertebrates (insects and crustaceans) accounted for 66.8 percent of total prey and 5.4 percent of biomass. The USFWS (1986) have suggested that insects may be underrepresented in prey studies due to ease of digestion. Insects are particularly important as food for fledglings (Detrich, 1986).

Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Habitat

The Swainson’s hawk nests throughout the Central Valley in solitary trees, small groves, or large woodland strips adjacent to open grasslands or agricultural fields (Dunkel, 1977; Bloom, 1980; Woodbridge, 1983; Schlorff and Bloom, 1984; and Estep, 1989).

Much of the nesting habitat in the Sacramento area is associated with riparian woodlands. Schlorff and Bloom (1984) reported that 82 percent of the nests were located in, or within, one mile of riparian forests, while Estep (1989) found 78 percent of Swainson’s hawk nest-sites in riparian areas. Favored nesting trees include valley oak (Quercus lobata), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) (Schlorff and Bloom, 1984); however, eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), walnut (Juglans californica var. hindsii), and willow (Salix sp.) may be utilized to a lesser extent (Detrich, 1986). Nests are usually located near the top of the tallest tree in an area approximately 20 to 90 feet above ground where shade is provided along with a good view of the surrounding terrain (Mallette and Gould, 1978; Schlorff and Bloom, 1984). The average tree and nest height of 40 Swainson’s hawk nests in Yolo, Sacramento, and San Joaquin counties were 57.7 feet and 47.2 feet, respectively (Estep, 1989). Moreno (1994) reported that the average tree height of 32 nesting territories along the Sacramento River was 81 feet, with the average nest situated 65 feet above ground. Nest locations are generally within easy flying distance to agricultural fields with abundant and available prey.

Vernal Pool Habitat

The Kiefer Landfill buffer lands support annual grassland habitats with seasonal wetlands including vernal pool and swale complexes. Vernal pools provide habitat for special-status species, as well as general seasonal wetland habitat. The vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) (VPFS) and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) (VPTS) are federally listed invertebrate species known to occur in the vicinity of the Kiefer Landfill; Sacramento Orcutt grass (Orcuttia viscida) is a state and federally listed vernal pool plant recorded in the area; and, Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala) is a state-listed species in the area.

VPTS is a small aquatic crustacean in the Triopsidae family. There are 18 known populations in the Central Valley from Redding in Shasta to Merced County, and from a single vernal pool complex on the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge in the City of Fremont, Alameda County (USFWS, 2005). It inhabits vernal pools containing clear to highly turbid water, ranging in size from 54 square feet to over 89 acres. After winter rainwater fills the pool, the population is reestablished from eggs that lie dormant in the dry pool sediments. Sexually mature adults have been observed in vernal pools three to four weeks after the pools had been filled. Some eggs hatch immediately and the others remain dormant in the soil to hatch during later rainy seasons. Their diet consists of organic debris and living organisms, such as fairy shrimp and other invertebrates (USFWS, 2005).

The VPFS is a small aquatic crustacean in the Branchinectidae family. VPFS occurs throughout much of the Central Valley and as far south as the Santa Rosa Plateau in Riverside County. This species occurs in two types of vernal pools: 1) pooled water in small depressions of sandstone outcrops surrounded by foothill grasslands; and 2) ponded water in small swales or depression basins with grassy or muddy bottoms in un-plowed grasslands (Eriksen and Belk, 1999). The habitat characteristics typical of the pools that support the vernal pool fairy shrimp include small cool water pools, low to moderate concentrations of dissolved solids,



and short and unpredictable durations. Average time to maturity is about 40 days, but can be as little as 18 days in warmer pools (Eriksen and Belk 1999). They feed on algae, bacteria, protozoa, rotifers and bits of detritus. Females carry eggs in a ventral brood sac, which are either dropped to the pool bottom or sink with the mother when she dies. The resting eggs remain in the dry pool bed for several years until rains and other environmental stimuli initiate hatching (USFWS, 2005).

Sacramento Orcutt Grass

Sacramento Orcutt grass is a short (one to four-inch high) annual grass that grows in relatively large, deep vernal pools. It has only been found within 135-mi2 area of eastern Sacramento County. It blooms from May to June.

Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop

Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop is an annual herbaceous plant from the snapdragon family (Scrophulariaceae). It has small yellow and white tubular flowers that bloom from April to August. The plant is less than four inches in height. It is associated with clay substrates in a variety of vernal pools (e.g., northern, claypan, northern hardpan, and northern volcanic ashflow, and northern mudflow), small playa-type pools, marshy areas, and lakes and artificial ponds and reservoirs in the northern Central Valley, inner Coast Range, and Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountains from Fresno County and into Oregon. It has been found in annual grasslands, oak woodlands, juniper woodlands, and confer forests from about 25 feet to 5,170 feet

Burrowing Owl Nesting Habitat

The western burrowing owl (WBO) is a small (9-11 inches), long-legged owl that differs from other species of owls by its use of underground burrows and diurnal activity pattern (Mallette and Gould, 1976). It is distributed from southern British Columbia to Tierra del Fuego in South America, and occurs throughout California except in humid northwest coastal forests and high mountains (Zeiner et al., 1990).

The preferred breeding habitat is dry, open short grass, treeless plains associated with burrowing mammals. It is also found on golf courses, cemeteries, road rights-of-way, airports, vacant lots in residential areas, campuses, and fairgrounds (Haug et al., 1993).

The owls usually enlarge burrows excavated by ground squirrels or other fossorial species, but may excavate their own in soft, friable soils. The owls show a high level of site fidelity, and reuse burrows (Rich, 1984; Feeney, 1992 in California Burrowing Owl Consortium, 1993), but burrows may be used by different pairs in different years (Zarn, 1994). Several burrows may be excavated within a territory with one serving for nesting, and others as satellite burrows for escape, perching, and observation. WBO also use pipes, culverts, debris piles, and nest boxes in areas where burrows are scarce.

Burrows are generally surrounded by bare ground or low-profile grasses and forbs that afford unrestricted views. High perches and elevated areas with clear lines-of-sight, such as mounds, fences, or other structures, are used for hunting and detecting predators, which include striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), badgers (Taxidea taxus), bobcats (Lynx rufus), coyotes (Canis latrans), and common barn owls (Tyto alba). Internal burrow dimensions are approximately 4 to 7 inches with cavities from 7 to 10 inches.

WBO are semi-colonial with five to six pairs per acre. The sizes of home ranges vary depending on quality of habitat and proximity to resources. Thomsen (1971, in Zeiner, 1990a) reported home ranges of two acres at the Oakland Airport. Trulio (1998) reported 30-acre home ranges at Moffett Federal Airfield in Santa Clara County. Haug et al. (1993) reported maximum home ranges of up to 500 acres.



Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat

The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus [VELB]), a federally listed Threatened species, is a moderate-sized, brightly colored, and sexually dichromatic beetle found on elderberry plants within the Central Valley of California and surrounding foothills. The species was listed as a Threatened species and critical habitat designated on August 10, 1980. Critical habitat included areas in the Sacramento Zone and the American Parkway Zone in Sacramento County. Essential habitat was designated along Putah Creek in Yolo County.

Occurrences of the VELB are primarily in the vicinity of moist valley oak woodlands associated with riparian corridors in the lower Sacramento River and upper San Joaquin River drainages (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1984). It is known to occur up to the 2,200-foot elevation in the Sierra Nevada foothills, although less frequently. According to Barr (1991), the evidence of VELB occurrence extends from Shasta County to the north, Kern County to the south, Placer and El Dorado counties to the east, and along the Middle River southwest of Stockton, San Joaquin County to the west.

The blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) shrubs are obligate hosts for the VELB, providing a source of food and broodwood. Because of the relatively large size of the VELB (0.5 to 1.0 inch), it is generally restricted to the larger branches and stems of older elderberry plants (Barr 1991). There are a number of VELB occurrences along Cosumnes River, and although it is assumed to have limited dispersal range (Collinge et al., 2001; USFWS, 1996; Barr, 1991), the Deer Creek riparian corridor and buffer lands are likely within the dispersal range.

Open Water/Wetland Habitat

Buffer lands surrounding the Kiefer Landfill provide habitat for a number of species; however, the one aspect of the landscape that is limited is that of open water. The buffer lands contain a number of small ponds, and flows within Deer Creek are perennial, but the option of creating a number of small pond/wetland complexes or a large complex on the buffer lands would add value to wildlife, and possibly provide a source of mitigation credits.

Riparian Habitat

The Deer Creek riparian corridor encompasses approximately 39 acres within the buffer lands and is an example of the Great Valley Oak Riparian Forest described by Holland (1986). This cover type is a medium-to-tall (less than 100 feet) broadleaved, winter-deciduous, closed-canopy community dominated by valley oak. Along the Deer Creek, typical sub-dominant trees include black walnut, Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), with occasional Fremont cottonwood and red willow (Salix laevigata). The shrub and vine strata are a mixed of saplings of the canopy species and western poison-oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), California blackberries (Rubus ursinus) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor). This cover type was formerly extensive on low-gradient, depositional reaches of major stream of the Sacramento and northern San Joaquin valleys. It intergrades with the Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest, which is lower in elevation and closer to the stream. This cover type is categorized as a Palustrine Forested Wetland (PFO) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979), and Valley Oak Series under the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) system (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995).

Riparian woodland and associated areas support the greatest diversity of wildlife of terrestrial habitats in California (Laymon, 1984). This is due to floristic and structural diversity, microclimatic conditions, abundance of edge, availability of food and water, migration and dispersal corridors, and escape, nesting, and thermal cover (Sanders et al., 1985; Grenfell, 1988). Laymon (1984) reported 147 bird species as nesters or winter visitants to Central Valley foothill riparian communities. Johnson (1982) recorded over 220 species of birds along the American River Parkway, and over 60 of these commonly nest in Central Valley riparian



habitats (Gaines, 1974). Trapp et al. (1984) reported 55 species of mammal inhabiting the Central Valley riparian communities, and over 30 species of mammals have been reported along the American River (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1991). Brode and Bury (1984) reported at least 50 species of amphibians and reptiles using riparian corridors.

Documents

KIEFER BUFFER LANDS LAND USE AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS … Use Feasibility... · 2015-07-13 · This Land Use Feasibility Analysis (LUFA) process was designed, where possible, to identify