# General plan documents — sacramento_county-california
Assembled by OpenPublica from the documents it serves for this government. Each section below is a separate publication by the government; page anchors (``) refer to pages of that section's own source PDF, linked in its heading.
**Contains 5 documents.**
OpenPublica has pinned these slots for this government: conservation, ej, noise, open_space, safety. That is what we have looked for, not a statement that the government publishes nothing else — a plan element absent here may simply not have been reviewed yet. Last reviewed 2026-08-09.
---
## Conservation — Conservation
- Source: https://landuse.saccounty.gov/archive/GPPD/GP_BackgroundReport_CO.pdf
- Pages: 117
- Covers: conservation
# General Plan
# Conservation Element
### BACKGROUND TO THE
### 1993 GENERAL PLAN AS AMENDED
The background section text and maps were not updated as part of the
2011 amendments to the County General Plan.
### County of Sacramento
### Community Planning and Development Department
(blank page)
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
## A. WATER RESOURCES
## BACKGROUND REPORT
### 1. WATER PURVEYORS
There are currently twenty-eight water purveyors in Sacramento County (see Table 1). There are five different categories of water purveyor: Dependent water districts, Autonomous (independent) water districts, Cities, Private, and Mutual water companies.
#### TABLE 1
#### WATER PURVEYORS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| Arcade WD | Mather AFB |
| Arden Cordova Water Service | McClellan AFB |
| Carmichael ID | Natomas CWD |
| Citizens Utilities | Northridge WD |
| Citrus Heights ID | Omochumne-Hartnell WD |
| Clay WD | Orangevale Mutual Water Co. |
| Del Paso Heights WD | Rancho Murieta Services District |
| Elk Grove Water Works | Rio Linda WD |
| Fair Oaks WD | Sacramento, City of |
| Florin County WD | Sacramento County WD |
| Folsom, City of | Sacramento County WMD |
| Fruitridge Vista Water Co. | San Jaun Suburban WD |
| Galt, City of | SMUD |
| Galt ID | Tokay Park Water Co. |
Types of Water AgenciesDependent Water Districts: Dependent water districts are dependent on the county government for their power to implement water use plans.
Water Maintenance Districts: The Sacramento County Water Maintenance District is operated by the Department of Public Works. Several small districts were consolidated for the express purpose of constructing and maintaining a water distribution system within limited geopolitical jurisdictions. Included within the County operated water district are the following service areas:
Valley Hi Greens, Arden Park Vista, Southwest Tract, Northgate 880, Sunrise, Hood, Grantline 99, Laguna, and Vineyard.
Maintenance districts may be formed for a number of purposes in addition to the operation and maintenance of a water distribution system. Some of the other common maintenance districts include both sanitary sewer and street lighting maintenance districts.
Autonomous Water Districts: There are four main types of autonomous water districts in Sacramento County: County water district, irrigation districts, California water districts, and community service districts. They are autonomous because each has its own independently elected governing body.
County Water Districts: Despite the name, all five "county water districts" are completely autonomous with elected governing bodies. Five county water districts were formed pursuant to the California Water District Act (Water Code Section 30000 et. seq.). The five are Northridge, Arcade, Florin County, Del Paso Manor County, and Rio Linda Water Districts.
Irrigation Districts: There are four irrigation districts located partially or wholly in Sacramento County. They include: Carmichael and Fair Oaks Water Districts and Citrus Heights and Galt Irrigation Districts. They were formed under the California Irrigation District Act (Section 20500 et seq. of the Water Code).
California Water Districts: There are two water districts in Sacramento County that were formed under the provisions of the California Water District Act (Water Code Section 35300 et seq.): They are the Clay and Omochumne-Hartnell Water Districts located in the southeastern section of Sacramento County.
Community Services Districts: The San Juan Suburban Community Services District provides retail and wholesale water to the northeast section of Sacramento County. Rancho Murieta Community Services District provides its own water system.
Cities: The following cities provide their own water service: City of Galt, City of Folsom, and City of Sacramento.
Private Water Companies: There are four private water companies in Sacramento County which are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. They include: Arden-Cordova Water Service, Citizens Utilities Company of California, Elk Grove Water Works, and Fruitridge Vista Water Company. These purveyors are owned by stockholders and are governed by State Statutes set forth in the Public Utilities Code.
Mutual Water Companies: There are four mutual companies in Sacramento County. These entities are not regulated by any governmental body, except that when a mutual water company is formed and it sells "securities," or shares of the water system to its users, it must be granted permission to do so by the State Department of Corporations. If a mutual water company is a
corporation (some of the smaller mutuals are not incorporated), it also files with the Office of the Secretary of State, like any other corporation. The mutual water companies in Sacramento County are: Tokay Park, Orangevale, and Natomas Mutual Water Companies.
Water districts are responsible for securing and developing their own water supply either through obtaining surface water rights from the United States Bureau of Reclamation or drilling wells into any aquifers which may underlie their jurisdiction. The boundaries of each district are shown on the map, Figure 3. This can be compared to the study areas which were drawn up for the Sacramento County Water Agency Water Plan Supplement done by the Boyle Engineering Corporation as seen in Figure 4.
Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA): This Agency was formed through the Sacramento County Water Agency Act. Its purpose is to develop an overall statement on county water needs.
The SCWA has the following responsibilities:
1. To provide a program of groundwater management with the objective of halting and, if feasible, reversing the long-term decline in groundwater levels, and terminating the use of groundwater of undesirable quality in the urbanized area of Sacramento County.
2. To establish appropriate groundwater management zones which may include areas within as well as outside the City Limits and to levy and collect groundwater charges within such zones for the purpose of managing groundwater use and improving groundwater quantity and quality. The revenues from the groundwater management program are used to offset groundwater management costs incurred by the County Water Agency and to pay for the construction of surface water facilities provided by the City.
3. To establish surface water benefit zones outside the City limits which will be benefited by surface water supply provided by the City. The Agency can assess, collect and pay to the City appropriate amounts for the construction of the surface water facilities provided by the City.
4. The County and the County Water Agency shall share and guarantee any debt financing required for the expansion of existing or construction of new facilities by the City.
5. The County shall cooperate in providing members of a technical advisory committee to represent the County and County Water Agency in providing specific policy and action recommendations and guidance to achieve the objectives of the Memorandum of Understanding (see separate section on Memorandum of Understanding for explanation of this term).
<>
1. Metro Airport
2. Natomas Mutual
3. Rio Linda Water Dist.
4. Citizens Utilities
5. Arcade Water Dist.
6. Northridge Park Water Dist.
7. El Ranchito Mutual
8. Citrus Heights Irrigation Dist.
9. San Juan Suburban
10. Orangevale Mutual
11. City of Folsom
12. Fair Oaks Water Dist.
13. Carmichael Water Dist.
14. Del Paso Manor
15. Arden Cord.
16. Sacramento County Water Main. Dist.
17. Arden Cordova
18. Fruitridge Vista
19. Tokay Park
20. Florin County
21. Elk Grove Water Works
22. Omochumne Hartnell
23. Rancho Murieta CSD
24. Clay Water Dist.
25. Rancho Seco
26. Galt Irrigation Dist.
27. City of Galt
28. City of Sacramento
### Figure 3
## Water Districts
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
<>
### Figure 4
### Sacramento Water Plan
## Subarea Map
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
A Technical Advisory Committee drafts agreements delineating the County's participation in the expansion of the American River Water Treatment Plant and the City's commitment in treating and wheeling water obtained by the County to areas outside the City's place of use.
Sacramento County Water Agency: The Sacramento County water agency is operated by the Sacramento County Department of Public Works, Water Resources Division, and is authorized to perform water supply, drainage and flood control for all of Sacramento County. Within the Water Agency, separate zones provide funds for specific projects in specific areas.
The current efforts of zone 40 and the proposed zone 41 to obtain surface water rights from the American River have received much attention. The purpose of both these zones is to try to secure surface water and/or additional groundwater rights in order to meet the water needs of their respective areas. The area to be served by zone 41 and the area already served by zone 40 are unincorporated areas which presently have no surface water entitlements. Both fund capital improvements through fees levied on water users. The Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) is empowered to levy fees. The main difference between these two zones is that the zone 40 area has no water purveyors while the zone 41 area has four purveyors: Northridge Water District, McClellan AFB, Rio Linda Water District, and Citizens Utilities Company. By joining, these water districts are more capable of negotiating water rights from a stronger unified position. Finalization of zone 41 is dependent on agreement by the affected water purveyors with the terms of the SCWA for formation of zone 41. The following issues must be worked out and agreed upon: administration and boundaries of the zone, procurement of water entitlements, and construction of facilities to provide a continuous supply of ground or surface water to lands within the zone. No fees for the construction of these facilities may be levied by SCWA until an agreement has been reached.
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
## A. WATER RESOURCES
## BACKGROUND REPORT
### 2. CURRENT SUPPLY
Groundwater
Groundwater is subsurface water occurring in the zone of saturation (below the water table) and moving under the control of the water table slope or gradient. Below the ground surface there are two zones: an unsaturated zone and a saturated zone. The unsaturated zone is that zone between the land surface and the water table and includes the capillary fringe. Perched water bodies may exist within the unsaturated zone. The saturated zone is that part of the water-bearing material in which all voids, large and small, are filled with water.
Precipitation, applied water irrigation, and stream flow enter the unsaturated zone from the surface and flow by gravity toward the saturated zone. The rate at which this water reaches the saturated zone depends on factors including the amount of precipitation or applied water available, soil type (sandy or hardpan), moisture content, and vertical permeability of the unsaturated zone. If only a small amount of water is applied or is available through precipitation, it may be consumed by evapotranspiration of the vegetative growth in the soil zone. Water that passes through the soil zone moves downward through the unsaturated zone. Water reaching the saturated zone is considered deep percolation and is treated as an increment to the groundwater supply.
The time of travel through the unsaturated zone is unknown due to soil type variation and varying distance to the water table. In the Natomas area the response of the water table to precipitation or irrigation should be several days. However, in the southern part of the county it would be considerably longer. Generally it is assumed that recharge water takes less than a year to travel to the water table.
The water-bearing sequence beneath Sacramento County can be divided into two main saturation zones. The lower zone, referred to as the deep aquifer system, includes the black volcanic sands of the Mehrten Formation, volcanic sediments in the Valley Springs Formation and non-volcanic sediments in the Ione Formation. The upper zone, referred to as the shallow aquifer system, includes the non-volcanic sediments of the Fair Oaks, Laguna, and Victor formations, as well as the overlying alluvial deposits. Most significant water-yielding deposits occur as sinuous layers of sand and gravel formed as stream channel deposits become buried as rivers and streams altered their course during geologic events (Figure 5).
Groundwater is the primary source of water supply for domestic, municipal and agriculture uses in the County. In 1987, it was estimated that groundwater use was approximately 450,000 AF/yr., accounting for 60 percent of the total water required by the county.
The average elevation of groundwater levels in Sacramento County remained steady at approximately 30 feet above sea level from 1930 through 1940. From 1941 to 1970, levels declined to about 50 feet below sea level. The declining trend has continued until 1981. The high precipitation experienced in 1982 and 1983 caused the groundwater level to temporarily rise. However, levels have gone into decline again and are now lower than in 1981. For more on this, see the section titled Groundwater Overdraft.
### Recharge Characteristics
Only a relatively small portion of the land area of Sacramento County is underlain by materials with sufficient infiltration capability to provide natural recharge to the groundwater body. In the eastern foothill region, slopes are too steep and consequently precipitation in excess of evapotranspiration becomes runoff. The Victor plain and Delta area are under lain by soils containing hardpan or organic clays; the low permeability of these materials inhibits infiltration. It is only along active stream channels that sands and gravels occur of sufficient area extent and depth that adequate quantities of surface water may infiltrate to recharge the ground water body.
Most of the stream channel deposits in Sacramento County occur along the courses of the Cosumnes and American Rivers. Along the former, studies have shown that there is an annual recharge of 17,000 AF/yr. along the river reach from Bridgehouse (east edge of the groundwater basin) to McConnell. Downstream from McConnell, recharge is insignificant due to an abundance of clay materials in the subsurface.
### Recharge
Recharge to the groundwater basin is derived from three major components: precipitation, applied water, and streamflow.
- Precipitation is the general term for all forms of moisture emanating from the clouds and falling to the ground. In Sacramento County precipitation usually occurs as rainfall. Once the rain hits the ground, it can evaporate, become streamflow, or groundwater.
- Applied water is a general term for all forms of water applied by humans to irrigate crops. In general, about 65 percent of all irrigation water is consumptively used by plants for vegetative growth. Of the 35 percent left, 10 to 25 percent infiltrates the groundwater basin and the rest evaporates or becomes streamflow.
- Stream flow should theoretically recharge the groundwater body if no impervious surface impedes the downward flow, since groundwater elevations throughout the County are lower than the stream's and river's surface elevations.
# Figure 5
<>
## Groundwater Recharge Capability
| Recharge Capability | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | High | [---] | Urban Services Boundary (USB) |
| | Medium | | |
| | Low | | |
| |
| :--- |
| Groundwater Recharge data provided by the California Department of Water Resources |
Average annual precipitation varies from 15 to 26 inches in Sacramento County. Also, areas have widely variable soil permeabilities causing different areas to have large variations in recharge. Different crops have different root depths which are directly related to the ability of the plant to gather moisture from the soil profile. The available water from rainfall and irrigation is compared with the water required for evapotranspiration and soil moisture deficiency. If there is any excess water on pervious land, it is considered to be deep percolation. The rainfall on impervious areas remaining after evaporation was assumed to be runoff. Ten percent of the agricultural and native vegetation areas is estimated to be impervious and 50 percent of the urban area is impervious.
In the urban area, approximately 20 percent of the runoff from the impervious areas ran onto adjacent pervious areas and was used by the plants, evaporated, or percolates downward. Countywide, the estimated average recharge is from 10 percent to 20 percent of average rainfall. The portion of irrigation return flow that contributes to the groundwater basin is assumed to be 15 percent of the annual average irrigation water, or 0.44 AF/yr. per an acre of land. It is assumed that 40 percent of urbanized area is pervious and subject to groundwater recharge. Table 2 presents the estimated amounts of groundwater recharge from rain and applied water.
### TABLE 2
### GROUNDWATER RECHARGE FROM RAIN AND APPLIED WATER
| AREA | AVERAGE ANNUAL RECHARGE (Total AF/YR.) |
| :--- | :--- |
| FOLSOM SOUTH SERVICE AREA | |
| Sunrise, Elk Grove | 21.9 |
| Omochumne, Other Folsom South Service Area | 19.7 |
| Clay WD, Galt ID, City of Galt | 16.9 |
| Southwest | 21.3 |
| | |
| REMAINDER OF THE COUNTY | |
| Natomas | 9.7 |
| Rio Linda | 3.3 |
| Multi-District | 12.6 |
| Sacramento North | 15.5 |
| Sacramento South | 15.2 |
| Carmichael, Cordova | 4.1 |
| **Total =** | **140.2** |
Other significant inflows into the groundwater basin under Sacramento County include streamflow recharge and subsurface inflows. These quantities are extremely difficult to estimate separately due to the lack of appropriate data. However, it is estimated that a combined quantity for streamflow recharge and subsurface recharge inflows should be 135,300 AF/yr. for the Folsom South Service Area and 81,600 AF/yr. for the remainder of the County. The Department
of Water Resources (Bulletin 118-3) presented estimated streamflow recharges in the County. These recharge quantities, by stream source, are shown in Table 3.
### TABLE 3
### ANNUAL RECHARGE FROM STREAMS
| RIVER OR STREAM | AVERAGE ANNUAL RECHARGE (AF/YR) |
| :--- | :--- |
| American River | 40,900 |
| Sacramento River | 23,800 |
| Cosumnes River | 43,900 |
| Minor Streams | 12,900 |
| **Total =** | **121,500** |
#### Sustained Yield
When a groundwater basin is influenced by any subsurface inflow, sustained yield will vary depending on the desired water level to be maintained. Sustained yield is defined as that yield of groundwater that will maintain present water levels. Based on this definition, the sustained yield for the Study Area was estimated to be approximately 357,000 AF/yr., of which 215,000 AF/yr. is estimated for the Folsom South Service Area, and the remaining 142,000 AF/yr. for the remainder of the County. A summary of the groundwater budget developed for the County is presented in Table 4.
### TABLE 4
### ANNUAL GROUNDWATER BUDGET (1,000 AF)
### (Long-Term Average, Based on Review of Records From 1961-1981)
| AREA | AVERAGE ANNUAL RECHARGE (AF/YR) |
| :--- | :--- |
| Folsom South Service Area | |
| Inflows: | |
| Deep Percolation (Rain & Applied Water) | 79.7 |
| Stream Recharge & Subsurface inflow - net | 135.3 |
| **Sustained Yield** | **215.0** |
| | |
| Outflows (pumpage) | 235.2 |
| **Overdraft** | **20.2** |
**AREA** | **AVERAGE ANNUAL RECHARGE**
--- | ---
Remainder of the County |
Inflows: |
Deep Percolation (Rain & Applied Water) | 60.4
Stream Recharge & Subsurface Inflow - Net | 81.6
**Sustained Yield** | **142.0**
|
Outflows (pumpage) | 144.8
**Overdraft** | **2.8**
Sustained Yield Subarea
Sustained yield estimates were calculated for each subarea so that surface water needs could be determined on a subarea basis. The estimates for each subarea are based on the ratio of each subarea to the total area. The results are calculated values and refinement will require further study of each local situation. These values are shown in Table 5.
### TABLE 5
### SUBAREA SUSTAINED YIELD ESTIMATES
| SUBAREA | ESTIMATED SUSTAINED YIELD (AF/YR) |
| --- | --- |
| Folsom South Service Area | |
| Clay ID | 7.5 |
| Elk Grove | 10.3 |
| Galt, City of | 3.6 |
| Galt ID | 33.4 |
| Omochumne | 33.9 |
| Other Folsom South Service Areas | 18.5 |
| Southwest | 56.9 |
| | |
| Remainder of Study Area | |
| Carmichael | 4.0 |
| Cordova | 6.6 |
| Folsom, City of | 0.0 |
| Multi-District | 30.9 |
| Natomas | 16.5 |
| Rio Linda | 8.9 |
| Sacramento North | 33.2 |
| Sacramento South | 41.9 |
| **Total =** | **357.0** |
Surface Water
There are no countywide surface water entitlements which would allow surface water to be distributed to all places which need surface water to augment their groundwater supplies. Surface water entitlements are restricted to "places of use" as follows (Table 6).
Sacramento River
Sacramento City: The City of Sacramento has water rights to 81,800 AF/yr. from the Sacramento River. Water from the Sacramento River can only be used to serve property within Sacramento City Limits. This is a legal requirement which cannot be altered by negotiations. But, as territory is annexed to the City it is entitled to Sacramento River water.
Natomas Central Mutual Water Company: The Natomas Central Mutual Water Company has entitlements to 82,000 AF/yr of Sacramento River water for irrigation purposes.
American River
Sacramento City: Currently, the City of Sacramento has water rights to approximately 245,000 AF of water per year from the American River; however, this is the diversion limit for the year 2030. The annual limit is based on an increasing schedule which began in 1963. About 57,000 AF/yr. is currently withdrawn from the river at the City's "H" Street diversion and treatment plant. Water from the American River can be delivered beyond the City Limits as long as it is within the boundaries of the American River Place of Use (POU) (Figure 6). To date, the City of Sacramento has contracted to sell or distribute American River Water only to Arcade Water District and Del Paso County Water District located within the American River Place of Use Boundary.
Cosumnes River
Rancho Murieta Water District: The Cosumnes River is the sole source of water for the Rancho Murieta community. The principal domestic water right held by the District is Application 2341b, Permit 16762. This water right allows for diversions from the Cosumnes River from November 1 through May 31 under the following conditions:
A. No water can be diverted when river flows are less than 70 cubic feet per second (cfs) at Michigan Bar and there is evidence of visible flow at McConnell Gage located approximately 21 miles downstream. For flows between 70 cfs and 175 cfs, a maximum diversion of 6 cfs is allowed provided this diversion does not reduce the downstream flow below 70 cfs.
### TABLE 6
### ENTITLEMENT AND USE OF SURFACE WATER (AF/YR)
| Area | American | River Sacramento | Cosumnes | Total Current Estimated Use | Total Water Available |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Arcade WD | 3,363 | | | 2,130 | 1,233 |
| Arden/Cordova | 10,000 | | | 2,040 | 7,960 |
| Carmichael | 36,500 | | | 10,800 | 25,700 |
| Citizens Utility | | | | | |
| Citrus Hts. | 19,774 | | | 19,640 | 134 |
| Clay WD | | | | 4,190 | |
| Del Paso County | | | | | |
| Elk Grove WW | | | | | |
| Fair Oaks WD | 16,219 | | | 15,400 | 819 |
| Florin County | | | | | |
| Folsom City | 36,000 | | | 14,780 | 22,780 |
| Folsom Prison | 4,000 | | | 1,490 | 2,410 |
| Fruitridge Vista Water Company | | | | | |
| Galt ID | 90,000 | | | 7,340 | 82,660 |
| Galt City | | | | | |
| Mather AFB | 10,000 | | | | |
| McClellan AFB | | | | | |
| Metro Airport | Included in Natomas | | | | |
| Natomas CWD | | 132,000 | | 82,000 | 60,000 |
| Northridge | | | | | |
| Omochumne | | | 2,000 | 10,400 | -8,400 |
| Orangevale | | | | 5,500 | |
| Rio Linda | | | | | |
| Sacramento C. | 90,200 currently 81,800 245,000 (by 2030) | | | 94,100 | 77,900 |
| SCWD | 60,000 | | | 2,000 | 58,000 |
| SCWMD | | | | | |
| San Juan | 44,200 | | | 4,000 | 4,200 |
| SMUD | 60,000 | | | 9,418 | 50,582 |
| Tokay Park | | | | | |
| Sunrise | | | | | |
| Other Folsom South | | | | | |
| Southwest | | | | | |
| Rancho Murieta | | | 6,368 | 4,164 | 2,204 |
| | | | **Total =** | **289,392** | **388,182** |
<>
### Figure 6
## American River
## Place of Use Boundary Map
#### Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
B. When river flows exceed 175 cfs, a diversion of 6 cfs is allowed for direct use plus an additional 3,900 AF to storage is allowed as follows:
1. 1,250 AF to Chesbro Reservoir
2. 2,610 AF to Calero Reservoir
3. 850 AF to Clementia Reservoir
4. 40 AF to South Course Lake #10
C. The combined amount of B. (2), (3), and (4) above cannot exceed 2,650 AF. The maximum allowable rate of diversion to storage is 46 cfs. The total amount of water to be taken cannot exceed 6,368 AF/yr.
Omochumne-Hartnell Water District: The Omochumne-Hartnell Water District has riparian water rights to 2,400 AF/yr. from the Cosumnes River.
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
## A. WATER RESOURCES
## BACKGROUND REPORT
### 3. CURRENT WATER USE
Current surface and groundwater use for the different Subareas of Sacramento are shown in Table 7. There are three separate water use categories: 1) Agricultural, 2) Commercial and Industrial, and 3) Residential, Parks and Schools. All categories are not necessarily represented in all subareas; some areas having more land in agricultural use while others are strictly commercial, industrial and residential and still other areas are a mix of all three types of uses. In general areas which are mostly agricultural use more water, especially if there is a large percentage of rice lands as rice requires flooding during most of its growing season. However, much of the water used for agriculture either returns to the Sacramento River or recharges groundwater.
### TABLE 7
### CURRENT (1987) SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER USE IN THE COUNTY
| SUBAREA | SURFACE WATER AF/YR | GROUNDWATER AF/YR | TOTAL |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Carmichael | | | |
| Carmichael ID | 10,800 | 4,300 | 15,100 |
| | | | |
| Cordova | | | |
| Eastern portion of the Arden Cordova Water District. | 2,040 | 10,860 | 12,900 |
| | | | |
| Folsom, City of | | | |
| Aerojet, Folsom, & Folsom Prison. | 16,270 | --- | 16,270 |
| | | | |
| Multi-District | | | |
| San Jaun Suburban WD, Citrus Heights ID, Fair Oaks WD, Lincoln Oaks area of Citizens Utility Co., Northridge WD, Orangevale Mutual WC, northern part of Arcade WD, and McClellan AFB. | 44,540 | 94,040 | 138,580 |
| | | | |
| Natomas | | | |
| Metro Airport, part of Natomas Central Mutual WC, and North-gate 880 Service Area of SCWMD | 82,000 | 960 | 9,160 |
| | | | |
| Rio Linda | | | |
| Rio Linda WD | 0 | 9,190 | 9190 |
| | | | |
| Sacramento South | | | |
| Suburban and Parkway service areas of Citizens Utility, Fruitridge Vista WC, Tokay Park WC, Florin County WD, the south area of Sacramento City, and Southwest area of | 94,100 | 32,395 | 126,495 |
| SUBAREA | SURFACE WATER AF/YR | GROUNDWATER AF/YR | TOTAL |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Sacramento North North part of Sacramento, North Natomas, Arden-Arcade area, and South Natomas. SCWMD | 2,130 | 24,645 | 26,775 |
| Clay WD Clay WD | 4,190 | 5,300 | 9,490 |
| Elk Grove Elk Grove WW and Grantland 99 service area of SCWMD | 0 | 4,570 | 4,570 |
| Galt, City of City of Galt | 0 | 2,900 | 2,900 |
| Galt ID Galt ID | 7,340 | 50,000 | 57,340 |
| Other Folsom South Canal Users Unincorporated area east of Hwy 99 and between Omochumne- Hartnell WD and Galt ID. | 0 | 20,000 | 20,000 |
| Omochumne Omochumne-Hartnell WD | 10,400 | 31,000 | 414,000 |
| Southwest Area west of Hwy 99 and south of Laguna-Elk Grove | 0 | 106,000 | 106,000 |
| Sunrise Unincorporated area south of the American River and east of the City of Sacramento water rights service area. | 2,000 | 30,000 | 32,000 |
| | | **Total Use** | **628,050** |
(blank page)
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
## A. WATER RESOURCES
## BACKGROUND REPORT
### 4. GROUNDWATER OVERDRAFT
Continuing groundwater overdraft has been occurring in various parts of the County since the 1940's. While groundwater can continue to meet some of the water needs in these areas, new or increased surface water supplies should be secured in the immediate future in order to protect the viability of the groundwater resource. Continuation of current practices will result in further decline of groundwater levels with corresponding increased pumping costs and possible degradation of groundwater quality.
As shown in Figure 7, there are three distinct cones of depression in Sacramento County, indicating that past and current groundwater pumpage in these areas has significantly exceeded sustained yield quantities. These areas have an immediate need for imported surface water to meet current demands.
Changes in Storage
Changes in storage can be computed from the change in water levels. The change in water level elevations was determined from spring water level contour maps. Estimated annual changes in storage in acre feet for the period 1962 through 1968 are listed in Table 8. Using the average specific yield of 7.5 percent, the average decline in water level is about 0.5 foot per year.
#### TABLE 8
#### ANNUAL CHANGE IN STORAGE FOR 1962 TO 1968
| Year | Annual Change in Storage (AF) |
| :--- | :--- |
| 1962 | -19,650 |
| 1963 | 51,510 |
| 1964 | -170,960 |
| 1965 | 29,560 |
| 1966 | -196,200 |
| 1967 | 303,440 |
| 1968 | -157,700 |
| Summation | -160,000 |
| Average Annual | -22,860 |
<>
Figure 7
# Groundwater Overdraft Areas
## Spring 1991 Groundwater Elevation
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
See Table 5, in Section 2 under groundwater for sustained yield estimates.
### Problems With Overdraft
A few purveyors within the County have indicated little or no problem with their current water supply situation. However, most purveyors were concerned about growth and resulting need for additional water. While some purveyors expressed belief that additional wells could meet future needs generated by projected growth, most indicated an interest in securing new or increased surface water supplies. In many cases, surface water supplies will be necessary because groundwater is not present in sufficient quantities to meet future demands without exceeding the sustained yield values.
In general, most purveyors have reported that the quality of groundwater is suitable for all beneficial uses. It usually meets drinking water standards contained in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations; occasional chlorination is required. However, secondary drinking water standards for iron, manganese and other constituents have been exceeded at some locations, making additional treatment necessary. Existing community water systems, including their wells, may not be required to meet the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) specified at 23 CCR Sec. 64473. New wells, however, must adhere to the MCL standards. Purveyors expressed their concerns that new wells will therefore require additional, expensive treatment and that water costs could increase significantly.
The aquifer systems and the quality of water contained therein are presently inadequately defined to be able to identify a pattern as to locations where water quality problems are encountered. Groundwater quality problems have been found in some wells in the northern part of the County. In the south area of the County, particularly south of the City of Sacramento and westward, wells drilled to a depth of 400 to 600 feet are generally found to contain high levels of iron, manganese, hydrogen sulfide, methane, and iron bacteria. In this same area, the quality of water found at depths of 200 to 300 feet is excellent and no treatment has been required.
Recently, in an area east of Highway 99, wells have been drilled to depths of 900 feet. Water production from these wells, which presumably produce from the Mehrten Formation, has generally been very high, exceeding 2500 Gallons Per Minute (GPM). However, small amounts of iron, manganese and hydrogen sulfide have been found in groundwater produced by some of these wells. The source of these constituents is unclear at this time. Their source may be in deeper water-bearing zones, in shallower zones or in both; or their presence in wells may be the result of poor well construction practices.
Groundwater contamination has been reported at a number of locations. This contamination is primarily from organic solvents and wastes at the following sites: The Aerojet-General property east of Rancho Cordova, McClellan and Mather Air Force Bases, the Army Depot in South Sacramento, and the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific yards in downtown Sacramento. The area south of McClellan AFB also has been the location of a pumping depression for a number of years. Such depressions tend to exacerbate groundwater contamination problems, as many
contaminants will migrate down gradient toward the trough of the depression. Because of localized groundwater contamination, McClellan AFB now receives water from Rio Linda Water District and Northridge Water District, and Aerojet now receives surface water from the City of Folsom. Groundwater at the International Airport is marginally acceptable for drinking purposes, as contaminant levels approach or exceed MCL's specified at 23 CCR Sec. 64435. Cleanup operations are either underway or are being planned. Other problems, besides contamination, arise when groundwater overdraft occurs. These are; subsidence of the earth as the water supporting it is drawn away; increased drilling and pumping costs as the water becomes harder to extract; and increased treatment costs as more lower quality waters requiring treatment for contamination are extracted when higher quality waters have been depleted.
### Current Use Versus Sustained Yield
Current use of groundwater exceeds estimated sustained yield amounts for groundwater in Sacramento County. The total current use is 380,000 AF/yr. while safe yield is 357,000 AF/yr. resulting in an overdraft of 23,000 AF/yr. See Table 5, Section B. for sustained yield estimates.
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
## A. WATER RESOURCES
## BACKGROUND REPORT
### 5. PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
Assumptions
The calculation of future water needs in the County for the year 2015 assumes the following:
- There will be no net increase in agricultural land. Urban pressures may cause a net reduction in cropland in some subareas.
- Water demand factors for all land use categories except residential remain constant. Per capita residential demands are reduced in some subareas due to increased densities.
- Current non-urban land will be developed in the order of land valuation. Vacant land and nonirrigated farmland will be developed first, followed by general irrigated farmland and rice farmland.
- All vacant land that is currently zoned commercial and industrial will be fully developed by 2015.
Agricultural:
It is assumed, for the purpose of estimating future agricultural water need, that total crop acreage will not increase in the future. This assumption is based on the following:
1. Most of the economically developable farmland in the County is already in production.
2. Soil surveys further indicate that the great majority of agriculturally suitable land within the County is already in use.
A number of the subareas are projected to experience a reduction in irrigated agriculture. Planned building patterns (zoning) and a population increase will completely eliminate general agriculture and reduce rice acreage by two-thirds in the North Sacramento subarea by 2015.
Commercial and Industrial:
All vacant land that is currently zoned as commercial and industrial is assumed to be fully developed by 2015. Total Commercial and Industrial need amounts to approximately 10 percent of the 2015 projected total water need for the County. Land thus developed will be withdrawn from non-urban land. Water factors and area employment patterns are assumed unchanged, with subarea water demand calculated from SACOG's estimate of employment for 2015.
Residential/Parks/Schools:
- Residential: Most subareas are expected to experience an increase in residential density by 2015.
- Parks: It was estimated that known 1987 acreage will increase in proportion to subarea population projections so that acreage to population ratios remain unchanged.
- Schools: The student yield factor (.44 student/house) and water factor of 0.024/AF/pupil/yr. remain constant for 2015 predictions. SACOG’s housing distribution was used to predict school water use.
Results:
Table 9 summarizes the projected 2015 water supply need for the County. The total need is 886,000 AF/yr. excluding conveyance losses and 931,000 AF/yr. assuming a 5 percent conveyance loss factor. The 931,000 AF/yr. projection represents a 22 percent increase over the calculated current water demand.
### TABLE 9
### ESTIMATED 2015 WATER SUPPLY NEED IN (AF/YR )
| Area | Total Need | Total Need plus Conveyance Losses |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Carmichael | 15,622 | 16,403 |
| Cordova | 14,423 | 15,144 |
| Folsom, City of | 42,879 | 45,023 |
| Multi-District | 105,871 | 111,166 |
| Natomas | 70,217 | 73,727 |
| Rio Linda | 13,461 | 14,134 |
| Sacramento N. | 93,184 | 97,843 |
| Sacramento S. | 155,438 | 163,210 |
| Clay WD | 10,119 | 10,625 |
| Elk Grove | 23,041 | 24,193 |
| Galt, City of | 8,722 | 9,158 |
| Galt ID | 77,942 | 81,839 |
| Omochumne | 50,743 | 53,281 |
| OFSCU | 23,004 | 24,154 |
| Southwest | 115,170 | 120,928 |
| Sunrise | 66,414 | 69,734 |
| **TOTAL =** | **886,249** | **930,562** |
(blank page)
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
## A. WATER RESOURCES
## BACKGROUND REPORT
### 6. IN-STREAM WATER NEEDS: AMERICAN RIVER
#### IN-STREAM BENEFITS
Introduction
As early as 1915, the City of Sacramento planned for development of recreational parks within the American River floodplain. The City established the first park in the vicinity of the "H" Street Bridge in the 1920's. The County of Sacramento also planned for development of recreational sites along the American River. However, the purchase and development of riverfront property proceeded slowly and in piecemeal fashion until the completion of Folsom Dam in 1956. Then, pressure for urban development adjacent to the river spurred efforts to preserve open space along the river. In 1959 the County established a Department of Parks and Recreation to develop a detailed plan of park needs along the American River. The American River Parkway Plan was approved by the Board of Supervisors in January, 1962, and was incorporated into the recreational element of the County General Plan. A systematic land acquisition program was initiated, and by 1986 Sacramento County had acquired over 4,000 acres of parkway land at a cost of 22 million dollars.
In addition, the 23 miles of the American River below Nimbus Dam has been designated as a recreational river by the Secretary of the Interior under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (U.S.C. 1271 et. seq.) and is given the same designation by the State under the State Wild and Scenic system (Public Resources Code 5093.50, 5093.54(3)).
Recreational Values
The American River Parkway is unique among urban rivers in the United States. Running through the center of the Sacramento Metropolitan area, the river and parkway provide a public recreational resource of great value and regional significance; it has no equivalent in California and few equivalents in this country. The parkway provides an outstanding variety and quality of recreational opportunities in the heart of a major metropolitan area. The parkway is California's largest urban riparian area. The parkway is managed to balance the dual goals of preserving natural, or open space, and protecting environmental quality within the urban environment, and at the same time contributing to recreational opportunities in the Sacramento area.
Recreational possibilities in the American River Parkway include such diverse activities as hiking, bicycling, picnicking, birding, horseback riding, canoeing, kayaking, rafting, sailing, power cruising, and swimming, to name a few. Some of these activities are water-dependent, such as rafting, swimming, or fishing; others are water-enhanced, such as bicycling, hiking, or picnicking.
The parkway contains developed parks such as Discovery, Ancil Hoffman and Goethe parks, as well as areas set aside in their natural condition. The Jedediah Smith Bicycle Trail permits parkway users to bicycle the full 23 miles from the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers at Discovery Park to Nimbus Dam. The bicycle trail then continues along Lake Natomas to Folsom State Park. Separate equestrian trails extend for many miles along the parkway.
A wide range of special activities takes place in the parkway, including nature study at the Effie Yeaw Nature Center, Take-a-Kid Fishing Day, Eppie's Great Race (triathlon), a kite festival, and other organized programs. The parkway is also an excellent place for those who simply wish to relax in pleasant surroundings.
### Riparian Vegetation Values
The riparian vegetation acts as a buffer between the lower American River and the surrounding urban development. This vegetation, together with the river itself, are the most prominent features of the Parkway, and contribute greatly to the recreational experiences there. Many species of wildlife use the riparian vegetation for sources of food, cover, nesting sites, roosting areas and migratory corridors. Riparian vegetation is recognized by ecologists as being among the most productive wildlife habitat in the state.
### Riparian Vegetation and Floodplain Relationships
The parkway's riparian vegetation and the river system are dynamic and interdependent. As the lower American River moves down and across its valley, the river attempts to erode its banks and cut deep channels at the outside of a bend where the water is swift, and to deposit the eroded fines and gravels farther downstream on the inside of a bend where the water is slower. When the river overflows its banks, the water slows and deposits its sediment load on the floodplain. Spring runoff can leave deposits of moist, nutrient-rich soils upon which riparian plant seedlings become established. However, sediments deposited by the spring runoff, and any seedlings germinated there, are susceptible to removal by floods occurring within the next several winters.
Winter flood events on the American River rework sediments in the active channel too frequently to allow many seedlings to survive. Floods during December, January and February average 46,000 CFS, and are considerably higher than average spring runoff. Production and survival of the riparian vegetation on the semi-confined lower American River is dominated by these flood processes.
Riparian vegetation on the lower American River has adapted its reproduction processes by re-sprouting after damage from floods. The "scour and re-sprout" process is more important on the lower American River than seedling germination. Following the large 1986 flood (130,000 CFS) this re-sprouting process produced vigorous new stands of cottonwood 25 to 30 feet above the summer low-flow channel.
### Riparian Vegetation and Wildlife
The parkway supports a wide variety of birds and wildlife. More than 220 bird species have been recorded in the parkway. Sacramento County estimates that 30 mammal species, 13 reptile species, and 6 amphibian species also inhabit the parkway. The possibility of catching a glimpse of deer, beaver, blue heron, or wild turkeys adds to the pleasure of parkway users. The riparian habitat is important not only as a breeding grounds for resident animals, but also as wintering grounds and migratory corridors for nonresident species.
### Ponds
The Parkway includes a number of off-channel ponds that have high wildlife value. Ponds are found at Sacramento Bar, Arden Bar, Rossmoor Bar, just upstream of Discovery Park, and in Ancil Hoffman Park Golf Course. Bushy Lake is also located within the parkway. These ponds were mostly developed during the late 1960's and early 1970's when tailing mounds from the gold dredging era were excavated for the production of aggregate. Water surface elevations in the ponds are controlled, in large measure, by water surface elevations of the river nearby. These ponds provide some of the most important riparian habitat for wildlife.
### Fisheries
The lower American River has 41 reported species of fish. Of these species, nine are anadromous (they live mainly in salt water but ascend freshwater rivers to spawn). The most abundant anadromous fish in the river are chinook salmon, stripped bass, American shad and steelhead trout. These fish are all sensitive to changes in stream flow levels, sediment loads, warm temperatures, and low dissolved oxygen content. In addition clean gravel is required for spawning and fry rearing.
### Establishing Minimum In-Stream Flows
### Recommended Minimum In-stream Flows For The Lower American River
Since completion of Folsom Dam, public attention has been increasingly focused on the Lower American River's fishery and recreation values. Construction of the dam was followed by public debate and governmental action to establish the Nimbus Fish Hatchery and in-stream flow standards to protect salmon and steelhead trout populations in the Lower American River. Over the years, essentially four flow regimes have been proposed. These are as follows:
Decision 893 - The Existing Legal In-stream Flow Requirements
This decision, established in 1958 by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in connection with the Folsom Water Rights permitting process, requires the Bureau to release a minimum flow of 250 to 500 cfs below Nimbus Dam. This was the minimum flow used in the original planning of the Auburn-Folsom South Unit in the early 1960's. Releases of 500 cfs would be made from September 15 through January 1, with a minimum release of 250 cfs during the remainder of the year.
Decision 1400 - Post-Auburn Dam Flow Conditions
This decision, made in connection with the Auburn Water Rights permitting process, was made in 1972 after a series of public meetings. This decision established post-Auburn Dam flow conditions between 1,250 and 1,500 cfs. In the absence of Auburn Dam, minimum flows would continue to be governed by D-893.
County of Sacramento - Minimum Recreation Flows
The County of Sacramento has prepared documentation on what it considers to represent the minimum flows consistent with the avoidance of permanent impairment to the Lower American River Parkway's recreational values. These flows range between 1,750 and 3,000 cfs as follows:
2000 cfs from October 15 through February
3000 cfs from March through June
1750 cfs from July through October 14.
Department of Fish and Game - Minimum Flows for Fish Reproduction
The in-stream flow needs are as follows, regardless of hydrologic conditions if fish populations are to remain unaffected:
| Month | Flow in CFS |
| :--- | :--- |
| October | 1,750 |
| November | 2,000 |
| December | 4,250 |
| January | 6,000 |
| February | 5,000 |
| March | 4,800 |
| April | 4,600 |
| May | 4,100 (+477)* |
| June | 3,750 (+493)* |
| July | 3,500 |
| August | 3,400 |
| September | 3,000 |
*Additional flows included to meet the needs of smolt migration, shad attraction flows, temperature control, and gravel recruitment.
### East Bay Municipal Utilities District Lawsuit
#### Background
The single issue, which has spawned 17 years of litigation to date is whether, pursuant to a 1970 contract with the Bureau of Reclamation, EBMUD may divert 150,000 AF/yr. from the Folsom Reservoir at the Folsom-South Canal or whether the mandates of Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution and public trust doctrine require that the diversion occur below the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers. Plaintiffs and intervenors contend that the EBMUD diversion and consequent reduction of in-stream flows will cause substantial ecological harm to riparian habitat, fisheries, and recreational resources. Plaintiffs and intervenors further direct their concern to the cumulative impact of the EBMUD diversion in combination with projected appropriation and diversion of American River water in response to expanding urbanization and population growth.
EBMUD contends that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate any appreciable harm to public trust values; that principles of California Water Law require the recognition and implementation of its contract rights; that sound public policy requires that high quality drinking water be obtained from the best available source; and that the Folsom Dam was constructed pursuant to objectives and purposes that preempt state interference. Each side advanced a number of issues which the Court considered individually.
#### Summary of Decision in EBMUD Case
Judge Richard A. Hodge in the Superior Court of Alameda County made a "Physical Solution" in the case of the Environmental Defense Fund v EBMUD. The important points are:
- EBMUD will be allowed to divert water at the Folsom-South Canal if the conditions below are met.
- The following in-stream flow requirements must be met as a condition of the diversion:
2000 cfs from October 15 through February
3000 cfs March through June
1750 cfs July through October 14.
- An additional 60,000 AF must be maintained in reserve from mid-October through June for release in accordance with the recommendations of the Department of Fish and Game in response to specific fishery needs.
- EBMUD shall use its best efforts to divert as much water as possible during those times when in-stream flows are least required for protection of environmental interests.
- During such periods when flow requirements physically cannot be met, EBMUD may not divert any part of its appropriation. Defendants shall not divert water except to meet the demands of customers within the EBMUD Utility District.
- EBMUD shall not market nor sell its water to any third party, particularly agricultural interests.
- EBMUD shall contribute to the cost of maintaining a viable fishery and riparian habitat in the Lower American River.
- The foregoing flow regimen is not merely "interim" in nature. It is intended as a permanent, constitutionally mandated prerequisite to diversion.
- The Court will appoint a special master to monitor the physical solution upon terms and conditions to be agreed upon by the parties.
### Implementation of The Decision
The Court maintained jurisdiction for the purpose of implementing the "Physical Solution" and providing for its modification in the event of new information on the American River which may come from one of the government agencies (i.e., DFG or FWS) which continue to study the river or the special master. John Williams of Carmel Heights, California. He will oversee all activities and research on the Lower American River to coordinate these activities and further advise the Court on possible changes or modifications to the decision which may be necessary.
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
## A. WATER RESOURCES
## BACKGROUND REPORT
### 7. SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL WATER
It is obvious, when Sacramento County's current groundwater and surface water supplies are compared to the projected 2015 water needs, that the County must develop new water supply sources in order to meet the future needs of the area and stop the present groundwater overdraft condition that exists in the County. Potential sources of additional water are discussed here.
#### Central Valley Project Water
The purchase of water from the Central Valley Project (CVP) is traditionally considered to be the primary source of additional water for the County. The United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) has not entered into any new long-term contracts to supply water within the CVP since 1979. At that time, the United States Department of Interior declared a moratorium on CVP water contracting while the USBR and California Department of Water Resources (DWR) resolved questions of their respective responsibilities regarding water quality standards for the Delta. In 1986, the USBR and DWR concluded a Coordinated Operation Agreement which resolved these questions. Congress authorized execution of this agreement by USBR the same year. The Secretary of Interior lifted the contracting moratorium following execution of that agreement. USBR intends to undertake contracting of available, uncommitted CVP water, subsequent to the filing of the Final Environmental Impact Statements on the proposed water contracting.
The USBR estimates that the available remaining firm water supply of the CVP is approximately 1.1 million AF/yr. Eighty-four agencies have made requests for supplies from the CVP totaling 4.2 million AF/yr. The USBR determined that the 4.2 million AF/yr. could be reduced to 3.4 million AF/yr. and that that total would meet agricultural, municipal and industrial (M&I), and wildlife refuge needs within the CVP service area. Requests for water from the American River totaled 610,000 AF/yr. and the USBR, after reviewing each request, adjusted this total request down to 542,000 AF/yr. which it determined would meet the region's needs. USBR's calculated water supply needs for the American River Service Area, along with current American River contracts and water rights entitlements, are shown in Table 10.
Three types of allocations will be made: firm, conditional, and intermittent.
Firm Yield - Water supply available from the operation of CVP facilities in all but dry and critically dry years when shortages occur. The amount of yield is premised on (1) ultimate conditions (traditionally equated to year 2020 level of development), and (2) operations studies of the 1928-1934 critically dry period to establish deficiency criteria. The operations studies use historical hydrology modified to show the level of depletion, accretions, and demands appropriate for 2020 development and reflect coordinated operations with the State of California as set forth in the Coordinated Operations Agreement (COA).
Interim Water - The difference between firm yield and the level of firm yield demand in any year. Prior to 2020, demands for firm yield supplies are assumed to be below their contractual maximum; thus, interim water can be contracted until the firm yield demand has built up to the contractual maximum.
Intermittent Water - The USBR proposes to use this term to denote a supply of water above firm yield which, when added to the supply, would constitute the total amount of water that could be contracted. This supply would be used in combination with groundwater through a conjunctive use program to expand the total supply of water that could be contracted by the USBR. This water could be contracted on an annual, short-term (longer than one year but less than 20 years), or long-term (up to 40 years) basis. The amount of water that could be delivered under this type of contract would not be as dependable as firm yield since the intermittent supply would depend on the type of water year (wet, normal, or dry), the total amount of water that could be delivered to users, and the quantity of water delivered each year to firm yield contractors. The probability of delivering an intermittent supply would be calculated on the basis of past hydrology and the ability to meet firm yield demands based on the 1928-1934 dry year period.
The USBR proposes to allocate approximately 317,150 AF of water annually to areas in Sacramento County. All of Sacramento County would receive 174,200 AF of firm water and 22,050 AF of intermittent water for municipal and industrial uses, and 60,450 AF of firm water and 60,450 AF of intermittent water for agriculture. The final amount of firm and intermittent water may be adjusted, depending on the capability of the groundwater basin to be used in conjunction with intermittent supplies. The USBR has acknowledged, informally, that insufficient water may have been allocated to meet Sacramento County's water needs. Sufficient quantities of intermittent water should be available to meet any shortfall.
The USBR based its proposed allocations on the following considerations:
Allocation to areas where major conveyance facilities already exist and any required construction would be for delivery facilities only.
Allocation to areas currently authorized for service.
Allocation to the areas of origin to the extent there is conveyance capacity.
Allocation to meet the full needs of wildlife refuges.
Allocation in a manner that strongly encourages conjunctive use of surface and groundwater.
Allocation in a manner which considers total available supplies, including integration of safe yield of local groundwater supply.
Of the six considerations listed above, five apply to Sacramento County. USBR's allocation considerations give the County and Central Valley wetlands needs priority for future allocations of CVP water.
Prior to entering into new long-term water contracts, the USBR is required by the National Environmental Policy Act to prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's). The USBR has prepared three draft EIS's covering the three distinct geographical areas to be served by the new CVP water contracts: the Sacramento River Service Area, the American River Service Area, and the Delta Export Service Area. The draft EIS's were filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on December 29, 1988. Public hearings were held in March. The required comment period was extended and closed on April 3,1989. The draft EIS's have recently been withdrawn by the Secretary of Interior. It is unclear, at this time, whether the draft EIS's will be redrafted and refiled or if the Secretary plans significant changes in the USBR's water market strategy. It is therefore not possible to predict just when the water the USBR proposes to allocate to Sacramento County will become available.
The contracting process is also vulnerable to a number of factors and events that cannot be wholly controlled by the USBR and its contracting partners. These include:
1. The SWRCB is reviewing existing water standards established by D-1485 for the Bay-Delta Estuary. These standards address salinity and pollutant levels, as well as minimum flow requirements for fisheries in the Estuary. New long-term CVP contracts will include provisions, like most of the existing contracts, to allow the Bureau to reduce the firmness of the water supplied to CVP water contractors should the SWRCB allocate more water than presently required by D-1485 to the Bay-Delta Estuary. Reduced firmness means the contractors will experience shortages more often and the severity of those shortages will be greater. The USBR contracting strategy assumes this contract language will allow new long-term CVP contracts to go forward before the SWRCB finalizes new water quality standards for the Bay-Delta Estuary.
2. As mentioned above, three draft EIS's on water contracting were prepared by the USBR for three distinct geographical areas. The draft EIS's were prepared separately under the assumption that contracting in each area could proceed separately regardless of the status of the process for the other two areas. The draft EIS's include a cumulative analysis of impacts
in all three areas and contracting from any single area could be delayed by a court challenge until all three have completed the process.
3. SWRCB has issued a work Plan to review the USBR's and the City of Sacramento's American River water rights. The stated purpose of this review is to determine the appropriate flow to be maintained in the Lower American River. It is unclear at this time what will emerge from the SWRCB's review, but the review will integrate the results of several studies, the Boyle Engineering supplement to the Water Plan, the USBR's American River Service Area Water Contracting EIS, and developments results of the EDF v. EBMUD litigation.
### U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
### Recognition of Needs of American River Service Area:
The following table (Table 10) shows the USBR's recognitions of future needs for the American River Service Area by agency.
### TABLE 10
### U.S. BUREAU of RECLAMATION PROJECTED NEEDS
### FOR THE AMERICAN RIVER SERVICE AREA
### FOR 2020 (1,000 AF/YR.)
| Agency | Contractual & Water Rights Entitlements | Additional Need | Total Need |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| MISCELLANEOUS | | | |
| Placer County CVP Water | 117.0 | --- | 117.0 |
| Placer County Water Rights | 120.0 | --- | 120.0 |
| Natomas Ditch Diversion | 32.0[^p41-1] | --- | 32.0 |
| North Fork Ditch (San Juan) | 33.0 | --- | 33.0 |
| Folsom Prison | 4.0 | --- | 4.0 |
| El Dorado County CVP | 7.5 | --- | 7.5 |
| El Dorado Water Rights | 47.5 | --- | 47.5 |
| City of Roseville | 32.0 | --- | 32.0 |
| MISCELLANEOUS SUBTOTALS | 393.0 | 0.0 | 393.0 |
| | | | |
| FOLSOM LAKE | | | |
| Folsom, City of | 0.0[^p41-2] | 20.9 | 20.9 |
| Mather Air Force Base | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| San Juan Suburban Water District | 11.2 | 26.1 | 37.3 |
| Citizens Utility Company | 0.0 | 21.6 | 21.6 |
| Northridge Water District | 0.0 | 13.2 | 13.2 |
| McClellan Air Force Base | 0.0 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| Rio Linda County Water District | 0.0 | 6.8 | 6.8 |
| FOLSOM LAKE SUBTOTALS | 11.2 | 91.5 | 102.7 |
| | | | |
| SACRAMENTO COUNTY WATER AGENCY | | | |
| Folsom-South County Irrigation | 0.0 | --- | 0.0 |
| Area 1 | 0.0 | 29.0 | 29.0 |
| Area 3 | 0.0 | 46.0 | 46.0 |
| Omochumne-Hartnell Water District | 0.0 | 12.0 | 12.0 |
| Galt Irrigation District | 0.0 | 31.0 | 31.0 |
| Clay Water District | 0.0 | 2.7 | 2.7 |
| Galt, City of | 0.0 | 9.9 | 9.9 |
| Laguna/Elk Grove | 0.0 | 77.7 | 77.7 |
| Sunrise East Area | 0.0 | 17.2 | 17.2 |
| SUBTOTAL AGRICULTURAL WATER | 0.0 | 120.7 | 120.7 |
| SUBTOTAL MUNICIPAL & INDUSTRIAL | 0.0 | 104.8 | 104.8 |
| SACRAMENTO COUNTY WATER AGENCY SUBTOTALS | | 225.5 | 225.5 |
[^p41-1]: Placer County water rights.
[^p41-2]: Folsom's 7,000 AF/YR. contract is for Water Rights Replacement. Needs over 7,000 AF/YR. are shown under "Additional Needs."
| Agency | Contractual & Water Rights Entitlements | Additional Need | Total Need |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| OTHER SACRAMENTO COUNTY | | | |
| Galt, City of | 0.0 | 9.9 | 9.9 |
| Folsom-South Canal: | | | |
| EBMUD | 150.0 | --- | 150.0 |
| SMUD | 75.0[^p42-3] | --- | 75.0 |
| Losses | 20.0 | --- | 20.0 |
| City of Sacramento | 230.0 | --- | 230.0 |
| Carmichael Water District | 10.8 | 4.2 | 15.0 |
| Riparian | 41.0 | --- | 41.0 |
| OTHER | | | |
| SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUBTOTALS | 526.8 | 4.2 | 531.0 |
| | | | |
| SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY | | | |
| North San Joaquin Water | | | |
| Conservation District | 0.0 | 57.0 | 57.0 |
| Woodbridge area | 0.0 | 13.0 | 13.0 |
| Stockton East Water District | 0.0 | 49.0 | 49.0 |
| Central San Joaquin Water | | | |
| Conservation District | 0.0 | 22.0 | 22.0 |
| San Joaquin County Flood and | | | |
| Water Conservation District | 0.0 | 31.0 | 31.0 |
| Stockton East Water District | 0.0 | 49.0 | 49.0 |
| SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUBTOTALS | 0.0 | 221.0 | 221.0 |
| | | | |
| TOTAL AGRICULTURE | | 292.7 | |
| TOTAL MUNICIPAL & INDUSTRIAL | | 249.5 | |
| | | | |
| TOTAL - AMERICAN RIVER | 931.0 | 542.2 | 1,471.2 |
1. City of Folsom Water Right (22,000), S. CA Water Co. (10,000).
2. Included in Natomas Ditch Diversion.
3. Includes 15,000 AF Water Right (City of Sacramento).
[^p42-3]: Includes 15,000 AF Water Right (City of Sacramento).
Conclusion
Sacramento County has viable options available to obtain the quantities of surface water needed to meet the County's projected 2015 water supply demand and to stop the existing groundwater overdraft condition. Surface water can be delivered with little or no effect on American River flows if diversions are moved downstream to the Sacramento River, except those that presently appear extremely difficult to move downstream, and if a diversion and distribution system is constructed that allows the surface water to be used as the base water supply and the groundwater resources available to the area to be used to meet peak spring and summer months demands. This system should be designed to eliminate any negative impacts the diversion alternative had on American River flows in the spring and summer months of above and below normal water years. Protecting the American River flows from adverse flow impacts by moving the County's diversions to the Sacramento River will cost the County approximately $17 million a year more than it would cost to divert directly from the American River.
City of Sacramento Water Rights and Entitlements
As mentioned in Part B of the Background Report, the City of Sacramento currently has water rights to approximately 245,000 AF of water per year from the American River; however, this is the diversion limit for the year 2030. The annual limit is based on an increasing schedule which began in 1963 (see Table 11). Only about 57,000 AF/yr. is currently required to meet existing demand. This excess supply is obviously very important and would greatly benefit Sacramento County Water Agency as well as other water districts who rely on groundwater resources if it becomes available. The City of Sacramento also has water rights to 81,800 AF/yr. from the Sacramento River. The City's total demand was about 90,000 AF/yr. in 1989.
#### TABLE 11
### CONTRACT SCHEDULE FOR AMERICAN RIVER AND FOLSOM SOUTH CANAL FOR THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO
| Year | Entitlement (AF/YR)* | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1975 | 75,000 | (4,000) |
| 1980 | 90,000 | (7,500) |
| 1985 | 102,000 | (7,500) |
| 1990 | 115,000 | (7,500) |
| 2000 | 151,000 | (13,500) |
| 2010 | 185,500 | (15,000) |
| 2020 | 223,500 | (15,000) |
| 2030 | 245,000 | (15,000) |
*Includes water which goes to SMUD a maximum of 15,000 AF/yr. Amounts in parentheses.
Each river has a specific as well as restricted territory which it can serve. Water from the Sacramento River can only be used to serve property within the Sacramento City Limits. This is a legal requirement which cannot be altered by negotiations. But, as territory is annexed to the City, it is entitled to Sacramento River water. Water from the American River, however, can be delivered beyond the City Limits within boundaries known as the American River Place of Use (POU). The map, Figure 4, Section B, illustrates the existing boundaries for using American River water. To date, the City of Sacramento has contracted to sell or distribute American River water only to Arcade Water District and Del Paso County Water District, both of which meet the requirement of being in the POU. Currently, negotiations are underway to try and develop criteria for the possible distribution of American River water outside of the POU.
Memorandum of Understanding
Reliance solely on groundwater is becoming increasingly expensive because water levels continue to decline and construction costs continue to rise. As a result of the various water issues and concerns, the Metropolitan Water Plan recommended that the City and County execute an agreement to implement a regional water plan. To date, no final agreement has been reached, however, the County and City have adopted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to facilitate future negotiations.
The City of Sacramento and the County are at a crossroads with regard to development of surface water. There are volumes of studies and reports available which document the groundwater overdraft and underutilization of surface water available to the community at large. The Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) and the County have taken lead roles in developing groundwater management authority. However, that management is dependent in large part on the cooperation of the City as it has the surface water entitlements, treatment and distribution system which is capable of expansion, and the experienced staff trained to operate the water system. Recognizing the City's capacity and the County's need, the two governing bodies extended a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to logically and efficiently provide water to the greater Sacramento metropolitan area. The purpose of the MOU is summarized below.
Expansion of the City's water treatment and supply system to functions as a regional water utility under the direction of the City of Sacramento to serve a predetermined service area made up of the City of Sacramento and portions of the unincorporated area, both inhabited and uninhabited, appears to be the most logical and efficient way to proceed. Based upon the findings of the Metropolitan Water Plan, which outlines the respective roles of the City and the County. This Plan best meets the objective of an integrated ground and surface water program. On July 14, 1987 the City and County executed a MOU. Subsequently, this MOU was restated on April 5, 1988 to clarify and broaden the scope of the original agreement as summarized below:
>"...recognize the need for conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water in the Sacramento area, to renew the bond of cooperation between the parties to plan together to resolve mutual water supply concerns, and to serve as an agreement for planning by
establishing a Technical Advisory Committee to study and prepare a proposed conjunctive use program for consideration and possible adoption by the parties after appropriate environmental review."
Per Resolution No. 88-0381.
### Highlights of MOU Agreement
1. Properly balance use of groundwater and surface water by:
a. Utilizing City's existing surface water rights to the maximum extent.
b. Seeking and utilizing additional surface water rights and entitlements.
c. imiting and managing groundwater use.
2. Provide equitable financing to construct City facilities for treatment, storage and conveyance of water.
3. Appoint Technical Advisory Committee
a. Purpose - Plan a proposed conjunctive use program and appropriate policy.
4. Policy Issues: Investigate and consider feasibility and desirability of:
a. Providing City water service outside City Limits but within American River POU on a wholesale basis.
b. Provide City service outside City limits and outside American River POU. The City would not utilize its own water rights and entitlements. The City would process, treat, store and distribute wholesale water if a public water agency could obtain their own permanent water rights from USBR.
c. Delivery of water in (a) and (b) is conditional upon acceptable financing.
5. City should assess and collect water connection fees on new development within City to finance its appropriate share of capital improvements.
6. City and County should develop and implement a groundwater management plan to halt overdraft, protect water quality.
7. Establish appropriate groundwater management zones with the ability to levy and collect groundwater charges.
8. Establish appropriate surface water benefit zones which are or will be benefited by surface water supplied by the City.
9. If the conjunctive use program is adopted, the City and County should mutually guarantee debt repayment in an equitable manner.
10. The City Council, County Board of Supervisors, and the Agency Board of Directors have the power and right to approve or deny any proposed conjunctive use program(s). The same parties shall also consider the results of environmental review and compliance with CEQA.
11. MOU may be terminated by mutual agreement or by a party giving one year's prior written notice.
(Note: IF the City/County consolidation is approved, it would no longer be necessary to reach an agreement, however, there may be some technical, design, engineering and environmental issues to be resolved. Water supply issues would not be the stumbling block, provided the City's existing water rights and entitlements succeed or can be transferred to the consolidated entity.)
In order for SCWA to obtain a firm water supply contract for surface water, it will need to either acquire the necessary water rights and entitlements from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) or it would have to secure a contract to purchase water from the USBR. Once a water supply contract has been obtained, SCWA would then need to enter into a "wheeling agreement" with the City to treat and deliver this water through the City's treatment plant and water distribution system. A second way to obtain surface water would be to purchase water directly from the City, which would both wholesale and deliver (wheel) water. However, this alternative would require the City to modify or amend its American River POU boundaries.
A fee ordinance has been established to fund the necessary capital improvements to treat, transport, deliver, and store water once it becomes available. The problem continues to be the inability of SCWA to successfully negotiate a water supply contract from either SWRCB or the City (provided appropriate amendments to POU boundaries can be obtained). It should be noted the County (SCWA) has recently adopted Resolution 89-2002 on December 19, 1989, offering to participate in the cost of financing an additional water intake near the mouth of the American River. This is one of several project alternatives currently being studied by the City in its environmental impact report for the E.A. Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant expansion project. It is likely that several major issues must be resolved before a final decision on the project can be made. Questions have been raised regarding the trade-off between maintaining water flow in the American River (environmental concerns) until it reaches the Sacramento River versus the cost to construct, operate and maintain a pipeline that will pump water back upstream to the plant. There may also be a reduction in water quality associated with the downstream intake structure. The proposed solution, together with the many alternatives, will generate extensive study and debate before a final decision can be reached. However, the proposed expansion of the Fairbairn Plant is not intended to serve any areas outside of the current American River POU. It is one step needed to deliver water to the unincorporated areas, provided water supplies become available.
Unused SMUD Entitlement
The SMUD contract for 60,000 AF/yr. of American River water for cooling the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Plant was executed in 1972 and expires in 2011. In addition, the City has dedicated 15,000 AF/yr. of its 245,000 AF/yr. of American River water as transport water for SMUD. Future use of CVP water for Rancho Seco is in doubt as the public recently voted to close Rancho Seco, and SMUD has indicated that it will abide by that direction.
The 60,000 AF/yr. from the American River was originally meant to provide cooling water for two nuclear power plants the size of Rancho Seco, however, it now seems likely that Rancho Seco will remain closed and no new nuclear plants will be built. Discussions with several technical and legal representatives of SMUD have been held to explore the possibilities of the County purchasing a portion of the water SMUD no longer needs. The USBR has traditionally opposed transfer of unused contract entitlement water. That agency has argued the water user should amend its contract entitlement if the water is not needed. The USBR has proposed selling water to those currently under contract and to others, such as the County, on an interim basis. In contrast to past policy, the USBR has also expressed a desire to encourage water transfers for specific reasons, such as groundwater recharge. The USBR may, therefore, support the interim use of SMUD water by Sacramento County for recharge of depleted groundwater aquifers in the southern part of the County, a suggestion that has received favorable attention by SMUD officials. The County will need to explore this possibility with representatives of SMUD and USBR.
Auburn DamHistory
In 1965, the Auburn Dam Project was approved by Congress. If completed, it would have delivered water to Sacramento County, San Joaquin County, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District via the Folsom-South canal. In 1975, the project was stopped when the earthquake in Oroville raised questions about the seismic stability of the dam which is built on a similar fault feature. By 1977, funding for Auburn had been permanently removed by the Carter administration which declared it both economically and environmentally unsound. In 1984, President Reagan stopped federal involvement in water development projects, thus withdrawing any hopes of federal funding for the Auburn Dam. Severe flooding in 1986 revived the Auburn Dam concept and by 1987 the Corps of Engineers was studying several different plans for the Auburn Dam site. Among these were the original plan for a full-scale, multipurpose dam, a flood control only dam, and several types of expandable dams (dams built primarily for flood control, but which can be expanded at a later time for multipurpose use).
### Current Status
Currently, no consensus has been reached on what, if any, type of dam should be built on the North Fork of the American River. Environmentalists and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service both claim that severe environmental damage will result if Auburn Dam is built. Associated wetlands, 42 miles of riparian canyons, riverside forests, and whitewater stretches will all be affected by a dam on the North Fork of the American River. The flood control dam is the least damaging to the river itself, however, other indirect environmental effects are concentrated down river in the Sacramento area. These environmental effects are related to increased flood protection which potentially increases development. Increased growth can cause increased air pollution, reduce farmlands, and decrease wetlands.
Flood control is currently of great concern for Sacramento County since the Federal Government has imposed building moratoriums, and private flood insurance costs are up. The Auburn Dam issue is seemingly no closer to resolution then it ever has been. Sacramento County is supporting the least expensive and equally effective flood control dam. Placer and El Dorado Counties are pushing for a full-scale multipurpose dam in the hopes that they will get some water from it. SWIM (Sacramento Water Intelligently Managed) supports a middle-sized dam for water, power and flood protection; and environmentalists are fighting all proposals for another dam on the American River.
### Cosumnes River
#### History
The Cosumnes River basin was studied by the Bureau of Reclamation in the 1960's, and a feasibility study for a dam on the Cosumnes River was conducted. In 1979, a concluding report was issued by the USBR and determined that under the federal government's criteria for project analysis a feasible project could not be built. Also in 1979, the Cosumnes River Association was revived through the sponsorship of the Counties of Amador, El Dorado, Sacramento, and San Joaquin. A report was prepared for the Association indicating that a project on the Cosumnes River could be built and paid for through the sale of water and hydroelectric power.
The Cosumnes River Water and Power Authority was formed through a joint powers agreement between Amador and El Dorado Counties. The Authority was joined by Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties in January, 1983. After several years of study and efforts to find buyers for the project's water supply and power, the Authority issued requests for proposals for a "turn key" approach to preliminary studies, water rights and power permits, project design, and construction. No responses were received and on April 28, 1987, the Sacramento County Water Agency withdrew from the Authority.
Current Status
The Cosumnes River Association dissolved in 1988 because of increasing awareness of the project infeasibility. While the costs of the project - both environmental and construction - were steadily increasing, the revenue from power sales which were supposed to finance the project were steadily decreasing. There was some hope that East Bay Municipal Utilities District would take an interest in the project and contribute to financing, however, they have not. At this point, the Cosumnes River project seems to be a dead issue.
THIS PAGE BLANK
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
## A. WATER RESOURCES
## BACKGROUND REPORT
### 8. WATER CONSERVATION
Conservation Programs
Water conservation could reduce the projected 2015 water demand. Reductions in water use can be accomplished through several means ranging from voluntary programs to mandatory water rationing. Voluntary programs and residential water metering are discussed below, along with the effects of reduced use on river return flows. It is assumed that mandatory water rationing would be instituted only under emergency situations, such as severe water shortages.
Ongoing ProgramsVoluntary Programs
The Sacramento Area Water Works Association (SAWWA) is a Sacramento County organization of waterworks management personnel. One of its functions is to promote water conservation. All of the water districts within the County are currently participating in SAWWA's ongoing voluntary water conservation campaign. Through the work of this group and individual water district conservation programs, water consumption in Sacramento dropped approximately 30 percent during the 1976-77 drought. The ongoing programs continue to promote voluntary conservation in Sacramento County. The City of Sacramento has noted a 13 percent reduction in use this last year (1989). Water district membership and application of conservation measures suggested by SAWWA are voluntary.
Emergency Drought Measures
During emergency drought situations several voluntary procedures combined with monitoring and some enforcement procedures have proven very effective in reducing water usage. Some of these measures include:
- Odd-Even Landscape Watering Days - houses with odd street numbers water on odd numbered days and houses with even street numbers water on even numbered days.
- Prohibitions on:
* Landscape water between noon and 6:00 pm, when evaporation is highest.
* Washing sidewalks and driveways unless necessary due to health hazard.
* Washing vehicles unless using a bucket and hose with stopper nozzle.
- Water Police - patrol for people violating prohibitions. Violators will be warned and repeat offenders often face fines of up to five times their monthly water bills. This is an enforcement measure and may or may or may not be used depending on whether the program is voluntary or mandatory. This is usually dependent on the severity of the drought situation.
### Water Metering
#### General Discussion
The Sacramento Metropolitan area is the largest unmetered water service area in the State. In order to charge for water according to the amount delivered, water must be metered. If customer's water bills are the same regardless of how much water they use, they have little incentive to use water efficiently. Metering in conjunction with pricing structure influences water use by providing a continual means to tie water charges directly to the amount of water used by the customer.
#### Advantages and Disadvantages
#### Advantages
- Provides an economic incentive for consumers to use less water.
- could reduce consumption in Sacramento County by an additional 15-20 percent.
- Reduced water demand due to metering could mean that costly enlargements of the distribution system could be postponed and that less water would be required from expensive new sources.
- In most cases the cost to install meters will be recovered in the rates charged for water service. These costs should be recovered in about three or four years.
- With metering, utilities can more easily locate and pinpoint system water leaks, and can eliminate sources of unnecessary water loss. (It is estimated that 4 percent of urban water deliveries are lost to system leakage every year.)
#### Disadvantages
- In a study done by the city of Denver, Colorado in 1985, it was found that metering, in itself, does not affect the amount of water consumed. Metering must be used in conjunction with pricing rate structures.
- Initial installation costs and operation and maintenance costs would be high; ranging from $250 to $500 per meter installed. Retrofitting existing unmetered homes is estimated to have a total cost of anywhere from $67 to $135 million.
- Metering installation in Sacramento County would increase the average residential billing by 38 percent to 69 percent over current prices which average $7 to $8 per month.
- Saving water in Sacramento County is somewhat redundant as 95 percent of all indoor water used and 19 percent of all outdoor water used in the County returns to the Sacramento River for eventual reuse.
- Metering will save approximately the same amount of water that is currently being saved through voluntary conservation measures now in place. It is unlikely that water metering and pricing will induce enough additional water savings (estimated additional savings would be 2 percent) that the cost of installing meters will be justified.
- Equity issues: Costs distribution and implementation time frame will effect the equity of increased costs of water metering.
### Costs of Metering
Several studies have been done to determine costs of installation and operation and maintenance of residential water meters. Costs to install range from $250 to $500 per unit. Due to the many variables included in meter installation, it is impossible to develop a single cost for a residential meter installation. Contributing to this wide range in costs are several factors:
- labor rates,
- differing materials costs,
- back or front yard installation,
- manual or machine excavation,
- size and type of meter installed,
- retrofit or new construction.
There are also several factors which could further increase the installation costs:
- public relations during construction (replacement of lawns, fencing and other landscaping),
- costs of installing new billing apparatus (computer programs, equipment, personnel, vehicles, and supplies),
- engineering costs for materials or contracts (i.e., bids, locating services, problem solving, contract administration),
- salaries for new employees (inspectors, engineers, laborers, and clerical).
Many of these costs were absorbed into purveyors' budgets and were not included in the estimated cost to install meters.
With installation costs between $250 and $500, it would cost between $67 and $135 million to install meters in the County's 271,000 unmetered homes. This cost would be completely paid by water customers through fees attached to their monthly water bills. The average water meter lasts approximately 15 years. At 8 percent interest, the annual (amortized) cost is between $29.23 and $58.46 per meter. Annual operation and maintenance cost for one meter is $8.18 per year ($2.92 for maintenance and $5.26 for reading, logging, and billing). Therefore, the total additional monthly charge to install water meters is $3.11 for the $250 price and $5.55 for the $500 price.
Although metering existing homes may be expensive, installing meters at the time of construction is not. It costs only $60 to provide a new home with metered water service.
### Options for Ease in Installation
A water metering program poses many problems for Sacramento County. The Boyle report, Water Plan Supplement, done for SCWA outlines three strategies which could simplify the transition to meters both politically and economically.
### Meter Installation in New Homes and Upon the Resale of a Home
Under this strategy, property owners would be required to install meters at their own expense when a residential property with no meter is sold, or a new home is built on a vacant lot. After several years of this intermittent installation, remaining unmetered water services would be required to install meters. This could be accomplished under either individual programs administered by individual water purveyors or by a county wide program administered by an agency formed just for this purpose or SCWA or SAWWA. Several payment structures are available to encourage early installation, and to provide the lowest initial costs for the water users and purveyors. Examples include:
- Higher rates for unmetered services in order to pay for meter installation.
- No rate structure differences until mandatory meter installation program begins. Then charge higher rate for those who waited until this time to install meters.
### Public Awareness Programs
A public awareness program on conservation values for fee increases imposed as metering is implemented. Programs should be continuous to ensure all users conserve as much as possible. Particular attention should be paid to programs which educate consumers about the high cost of summer water use. If the public understands the reasons for water metering and know how to avoid high bills by conserving, metering programs will face much less resistance. Also, when meters are installed, a transition period is needed to allow customers to adjust to the new pricing scales. It is usually better to start the public awareness programs long before meters are installed and metering started. This especially is true if metering is scheduled to start during the summer months when water usage is high and rates are usually increased in order to increase conservation.
### Core Organization
A core organization is formed by the County to administer the metering program. This allows for volume purchases of quality materials and services, standardized installation procedures, and a stronger position for negotiation of financing. This organization would coordinate installation (both new and retrofit), help to lessen adverse public reaction, enforce meter sizing specifications and installation methods, and deal with legal and financial constraints and labor considerations.
### Metering and Strategies
As mentioned earlier, in order for water meters to act as water conservation devices they must be used in conjunction with a conservation oriented water pricing technique. Meters, in conjunction with a suitable rate schedule, can decrease water use by up to 30 percent especially immediately following installation. As people become adjusted to the higher prices, over time the savings decrease to around 15 percent of the pre-meter water use.
### Current Efforts to Require Meters
Assembly Bill 3222, requiring metering in unmetered areas of California with more than 800,000 residents would require water meters to be installed on all new homes and would give homeowners until the year 2000 to retrofit existing homes with meters. This bill was specifically targeted at Sacramento County since it was aimed at unmetered areas with more than 800,000 residents and other unmetered areas like Fresno, Kern, Placer, Sonoma, and Sutter Counties do not meet this requirement. The bill made it through the Assembly but was withdrawn by the sponsor while still in committee in the Senate. AB-3222 is typical of bills introduced almost yearly by other areas of the State which are currently metered. Although both the City and County continue to strongly oppose metering. There is a realization that it may be politically advantageous to install meters. The amount of water conserved after installation, however, may not be much greater than the amount that has been achieved through voluntary programs. Installing meters may give Sacramento better standing when competing with metered areas for new or expanded water rights by helping to show that Sacramento is aware of and willing to do something about the water shortage problems faced by the State.
### Reclaimed Water
Reclaimed wastewater from commercial, industrial, agricultural, and domestic uses is an important supply source for many areas of California where existing water supplies are scarce or expensive. In areas where groundwater and surface water have been plentiful, as in Sacramento County, reclamation of wastewater has not been aggressively pursed. Current trends toward conservation of natural resources, however, are causing a resurgence of interest in this very important source.
### Accepted Uses of Reclaimed Water
Over the years, reuses of reclaimed wastewater have gained acceptance by public health organizations and the general public. Table 12 lists wastewater reuses and a short explanation of each. As described in Table 12, Irrigation Reuse, and Groundwater Replenishment, are addressed here as they could provide the most immediate benefits to Sacramento County. The other classifications of reuse are generally more complex and deserve more detail than is possible within the scope of this paper.
### TABLE 12
### TYPES OF WASTEWATER REUSE
| Type of Reuse | Description | Current Status |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Industrial in-plant recycling | Multiple recycling and/or treatment. | Extensively used, especially in Western US. |
| Municipal reuse | Process water for wastewater treatment municipal power plant cooling, fire protection and irrigation of public sites. | Widely utilized but generally only portion of potential. Numerous California applications. |
| Industrial reuse | Distribution of partially treated wastewaters from municipal plants for industrial process & cooling waters. | Rapidly growing acceptance. Several applications and many feasibility studies are under way in California. |
| Irrigation reuse | Reuse of partially treated wastewaters for agricultural & landscape irrigations. Degree of necessary treatment varies from primary to secondary plus filtration. | Extensively used, on seasonal basis, in CA. Application and degree of treatment established by State Health Department. |
| Groundwater replenishment | Incidental and intentional spreading and/or injection of treated wastewaters for | General use in California especially in water wastes are high in TDS. |
| General use recycling | Recycling and distribution of treated wastewaters for general uses except drinking and washing. | Isolated applications. None in CA, but may be feasible in water deficient regions. |
| Potable use recycling | Recycling and distribution of advanced treated water & partially demineralized wastewaters for all uses. | Non-intentional U.S. applications. Acceptance by public is gradually increasing but majority reject. Regional Sanitation District examining feasibility. |
Groundwater Replenishment
Reuse practices for groundwater replenishment generally consist of spreading and/or injecting reclaimed wastewater on open land (open space, agricultural land, or parks) over groundwater tables to supplement natural replenishment. Along the coast this procedure is used to form subsurface hydraulic barriers to prevent salt water intrusion. Large scale utilization of reclaimed water for groundwater replenishment would require strict groundwater management practices to prevent adverse variations and impairment of groundwater quality. Such impairment could include significantly higher total dissolved solids, higher nitrates, increased hardness, and other effects upon quality parameters. Nitrates and other nutrients found in reclaimed water can be of beneficial use for irrigation/fertilizer and, in that application, can have a value of $20 to $40 per acre foot. These same nutrients, however, can have an adverse effect on domestic waters and must be kept separate from a groundwater basin used for domestic water supplies. Proper application and groundwater basin management are necessary for successful replenishment programs.
Irrigation
In 1981, approximately 184,000 AF of reclaimed water was used for agricultural irrigation in California. By 1986, this use had increased to approximately 300,000 AF a year. Within the County two smaller wastewater treatment facilities presently provide reclaimed water to local farmers to irrigate fodder crops. However, much of the approximately 170,000 AF/yr. of treated wastewater from the Regional Wastewater Plant presently flowing into the Sacramento River could be retained and used in the Sacramento area.
The Regional Plant is located on a 3,000 acre parcel adjacent to the Sacramento River, approximately four miles south of Sacramento Executive Airport and approximately two miles west of the Cosumnes River. Treatment plant facilities cover 1,000 acres, and the remaining 2,000 acres serve as a buffer for surrounding properties. The Plant provides secondary treatment for wastewater and consistently meets public health requirements. The effluent from the plant is discharged into the Sacramento River just south of the town of Freeport. Presently, the average daily dry weather flow through the plant is 150 million gallons per day. Regional Sanitation has recently received grant monies to investigate the feasibility of using treated waste water for wetland restoration or other uses.
Existing Reclaimed Water Projects
In 1987, the California Department of Health Services reported that wastewater was reclaimed at over 200 wastewater plants and applied to more than 360 locations. A 1981 SWRCB Office of Water Recycling study provided an in-depth report on 21 of these locations. The results of this study showed that a wide range of field crops and some orchard crops were irrigated with reclaimed water with average annual wastewater use ranging from 560 AF to 16,800 AF, depending on location.
Table 13 lists all sewage treatment facilities in Sacramento County. It can be seen that three plants currently utilize treated wastewater for reclamation projects. The Rancho Murieta system is a model for self-contained application of reclaimed wastewater in a densely populated area, the effluent of the treatment facility meets strict health requirements through tertiary treatment. Additionally, all drainage from the site must be contained during initial rains and diverted back into detention ponds. Reclaimed water from the Rio Cosumnes Correction Center is used to spray irrigate alfalfa. Fields of alfalfa are flood-irrigated with water from the Walnut Grove facility.
### TABLE 13
### Existing Wastewater Facilities, Sacramento County
| Name/Location | Type of Treatment | Average Daily Flow, MGD | Reclamation Use |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Regional Treatment Plant | Secondary | 150.000 | No |
| Rancho Murieta | Tertiary | 0.325 | Yes |
| Walnut Grove | Lagoon | -0.100 | Yes |
| Boys Ranch | Lagoon | -0.100 | No |
| Courtland | Lagoon | -0.100 | No |
| Metro Airport | Lagoon | -0.100 | No |
| Rio Cosumnes Correction | Lagoon | 0.150 | Yes |
| Galt | Aeration Lagoon | 0.650 | Yes |
| Isleton | Lagoon | 0.250 | No |
### Health Considerations
Health and regulatory considerations govern use of reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation. The EPA, USBR, DWR, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB), California Department of Health Services, and Sacramento County Environmental Health and Sanitation are responsible for regulating reclaimed water use in Sacramento County. CVRWQCB establishes water quality standards, prescribes and enforces wastewater discharge requirements, and in consultation with the Department of Health Services, prescribes and enforces reclamation requirements. Each reclamation project must have a permit from the CVRWQCB conforming to the Department of Health Services criteria.
Where there is minimal health risk, based on degree of contact and water quality, the regulations are liberal, allowing the use of primary effluent for surface spray irrigation of fodder, fiber, and seed crops and surface irrigation of orchards and vineyards. If food crops are surface-irrigated in a manner that allows no contact between edible portion of the crop and the reclaimed water, a disinfected, secondary treated effluent is acceptable. Tertiary effluent that is pathogen free is required for spray irrigation of all crops that are eaten or sold raw. Additionally, intensely used landscape areas such as parks and golf courses require tertiary treatment.
# Xeriscaping Ordinances
## What are Xeriscapes?
Xeriscaping is derived from the Greek word, Xeros, meaning dry. This concept involves planning landscaping which uses less water then conventional landscaping. The main principles involved are:
- Reduction of turf areas (grass consumes a lot of water).
- Use of drought tolerant plants.
- Grouping plants with similar water requirements together so that no plants are over or under watered.
- Careful design and implementation of irrigation systems to prevent water waste through over watering and "gutter flooding."
## Xeriscaping and Other Jurisdictions
More than 50 communities have ordinances that require conserving water by appropriate landscape design (Xeriscaping). Goleta has one of the strictest, limiting the turf in new single-family homes and demanding efficient irrigation systems. The City of Santa Monica has an ordinance which requires reduced water consumption in landscaping through xeriscaping. It applies to all new multifamily, commercial and industrial projects. Plans which must be prepared by a California licensed landscape architect or other qualified person must be submitted to the planning department for approval before landscaping can begin.
## Draft Xeriscaping Ordinance in Sacramento
The County of Sacramento has passed a xeriscaping ordinance to help promote xeriscaping as an efficient, low maintenance answer to all landscaping situations. By requiring xeriscaping the County hopes to help reduce the demand on water resources while convincing homeowners that xeriscapes are better then acres of thirsty, labor intensive lawn.
## Statewide Xeriscaping Ordinance
Assembly Bill 325, introduced into the 1989-90 Regular Session, would require every city, county, and city and county to adopt a xeriscaping ordinance for all new developments within the city, county, or city and county by January 1, 1991.
(blank page)
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
## A. WATER RESOURCES
## BACKGROUND REPORT
### 9. REFERENCES
Boyle Engineering Corp. April 1990. Engineer's Report, Proposed Zone 41. Sacramento County Water Agency. Boyle Engineering Corp. Sacramento, CA.
Boyle Engineering Corp. December 1989. Sacramento County Water Agency: Water Plan Supplement 1989. Boyle Engineering Corp. Sacramento, CA.
Bureau of Reclamation. September 20, 1990. Amendment to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Supplement on Auburn-Folsom South Uni of the American River Diversion Project, Central Valley Project, CA. Vol. 1. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
Bureau of Reclamation. January 1988. Draft: Technical Working Paper No. 2 for the Sacramento River, American River, and Delta Export Service Areas: Water Contracting, Environmental Impact Statements: Water Needs Analyses. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region.
Bureau of Reclamation. September 1987. Scoping Report for the American River Water Contracting Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region.
Clute, Assembly Member. January 23, 1989. Assembly Bill No. 325. California Legislature - 1989-90 - Regular Session.
Department of Water Resources. July 1974. Bulletin No. 118-3, Evaluation of Groundwater Resources: Sacramento County. Department of Water Resources, State of California.
Department of Water Resources. November 24, 1987. Working Paper and Analysis of Issues Regarding Sacramento County Water Supply. Department of Water Resources, State of California.
Editorial Staff. April 21, 1990. Water Meters in Sacramento. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA.
Giberson and Associates. February 1990. Rancho Murieta Water Supply: Planning for Future Droughts. Rancho Murieta Community Services District and Giberson and Associates Planning Engineering, Sacramento, CA.
Hodge, Honorable Richard A., Superior Court Judge, Environmental Defense Fund v. East Bay Municipal Utility District: Tentative Decision. Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda.
Lambert, Marjie. November 26, 1998. Cosumnes Project in Trouble. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA.
Mayer, Jim. March 2, 1990. Even Dry Dam Will Do Harm, Wildlife Service Cites Ecological Effects. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA.
Mayer, Jim. February 9, 1990. Multipurpose Dam Unneeded, County Water Chief Contends. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA.
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission. April 24, 1990. Report on the Relationship Between Water Service and Requests to annex Property into the City of Sacramento. Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission. Sacramento, CA.
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission. May 1990. Directory of Sacramento County Service Providers, Sixth Edition. Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission. Sacramento, CA.
Sample, Herbert. May 24, 1990. Panel Backs Capital Water Meters. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA.
Santa Monica, City of. April 28, 1988. Water Conservation Requirements; Xeriscape Ordinance No. 163,532. City of Santa Monica, CA.
Schnitt, Paul. June 8, 1990. Water Meter Measure Nears Assembly Debate. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA.
Shumway, Norm and Fazio, Vic, & Matsui, R.T. May 20, 1990. What Kind of Dam, If Any, for Auburn. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, CA.
Surface Water Supplies. November 24, 1987. Index.
Sunset Magazine. April 1990. All Over the West, Concerns About Water and New Steps Toward Conservation. Sunset Magazine, Lane Publishing Co., Menlo Park, CA.
Water Advisory Commission. May 17, 1987. Minutes of the May 17, 1987 Water Advisory Commission. Water Advisory Commission. Sacramento, CA.
Water Advisory Commission. November 24, 1987. Working paper: Analysis of Issues Regarding Sacramento County Water Supply. Water Resources Division, Sacramento County. Sacramento, CA.
Water Resources Division. July 12, 1989. Draft: County of Sacramento Water-Conserving Landscaping Requirements. Water Resources Division, Sacramento County. Sacramento, CA.
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
## B. MINERAL RESOURCES
## BACKGROUND REPORT
### INTRODUCTION
Mineral resources in Sacramento County include sand, gravel, clay, gold, silver, peat, topsoil, lignite, natural gas and petroleum (Figures 8 and 9). The principal resources which are in production are aggregate (sand and gravel) and natural gas. The natural gas production areas are located mostly in the Delta's Rio Vista Field, one of California's largest producing areas. There are three major and several smaller producers of sand and gravel in Sacramento County, the larger producers are located in the Fair Oaks and Perkins-Kiefer areas. They also produce asphaltic and Portland concrete cement along with free gold and silver recovered from the crushing process. Clay is surface mined in at least two location; topsoil from one location on the Cosumnes River. At present, peat and lignite deposits in the Delta are not commercially minded. Resource conservation issues associated with natural gas production and the lesser minerals are not significant. This plan focuses primarily on aggregate production.
This background report discusses four sections that pertain to the continued availability of construction aggregate in Sacramento County. Section A reviews past and present aggregate production rates, revised depletion estimates and updates the status of known reserves since publication of P.K. Morton's Aggregate Resource Report in 1986. Current production and reserve estimates were provided by local aggregate producers and are aggregated to protect the proprietary nature of the information. Section B evaluates Resource Sectors F and I for potential mining based on criteria used by the State Mining and Geology Board. Section C updates ongoing discussions on aggregate reserves on Mather Air Force Base and evaluation of the resource. Section D suggests alternative deposits located outside the Perkins-Kiefer area under exclusive ownership of local aggregate companies.
# Figure 8
<>
| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Aggregate Resource Area Information Provided By: The Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology | This map is for informational purposes and does not necessarily reflect Sacramento County Policy. Call the Sacramento County Planning Department for specific information. | **Mineral Resources** |
| DMG Open-File Report 99-09 Plates 3, 4 & 8 Mined Land Classification Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate and Kaolin Clay Resources | | ![legend-icon] Aggregate Resource Areas Mined Out | ![legend-icon] Major Roads |
| | | ![legend-icon] Known Gas Regions | ![legend-icon] Potential Kaolin Clay Deposits (clay mrz 2a, 2b & 3) |
| October 14, 2011 | | ![legend-icon] Urban Services Boundary (USB) | ![legend-icon] Significant Mineral Deposits (mrz-2) |
# Figure 9
<>
## Aggregate and Kaolin Clay Resources
This map is for informational purposes and does not necessarily reflect Sacramento County Policy. Call the Sacramento County Planning Department for specific information.
**October 14, 2011**
Aggregate Resource Area Information provided by:
The Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology; Personal communication from California Geological Survey, Don Dupras regarding updated ARA's December 12, 2001
DMG Open-file Report 99-09 Mixed Land Classification Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate and Kaolin Clay Resources. For details see Plates 3,4,6,7 & 8
| Symbol | Description |
| :--- | :--- |
| ![symbol] | Significant Mineral Deposits (mrz-2) |
| ![symbol] | 100 Year Floodplain |
| ![symbol] | Potential Kaolin Clay Deposits (clay mrz 2a,2b & 3) |
| ![symbol] | Urban Services Boundary |
| ![symbol] | Prime Aggregate Resource Area Identified By the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology |
| ![symbol] | Prime Aggregate Resource Area with an Active PCC-Grade Aggregate Operator |
PRODUCTION AND ESTIMATED RESERVESProduction Rates: Production rates for construction aggregates in the American River Resource Area from 1960 through 1980 averaged 5.4 million tons, according to a 1985 study conducted by the California Division of Mines and Geology. In 1986, the consulting firm of P.K. Morton determined the three year average production rate of major aggregate producers in the American River Resource Area at 6.7 million tons/year.
To determine current projection rates, Planning staff contacted major local aggregate produces in the Spring, 1990. Their combined 1989 production amounted to 9.8 million tons. This significantly higher production rate (46 percent increase since the mid 1980's) can be attributed to increased demographic growth rates and increased construction activity in the Greater Sacramento Area. Sacramento County grew by 246,500 residents and added 93,700 housing units during the 1980's. The rate of growth has particularly accelerated over the last three years.
Estimates Reserves: The P.K. Morton report in 1986 estimated total resources of 161 million tons and total permitted reserves of 47 million tons within the American River Resource Area. The 161 million ton estimate represents resources judged to be of commercial quality and was derived from sector by sector yield estimates prepared by the State DMG in its 1985 study. Total permitted reserves are those resources owned by local aggregate producers and approved for mining. Based on these estimates and a stable depletion rate of 6.7 million tons/year, or by 2009.
The Planning Department's 1990 survey of major local aggregate producers indicated that total resources of these companies in the American River Resource Area amounted to 170 million tons, and total permitted reserves were 47 million tons (coincidentally, the same figure Morton used in 1986). The 170 million ton figure does include potential resources not owned or under option to individual companies, including the area generally south of Elder Creek Road. The reason for the discrepancy in the two estimates of total resources over the intervening four years is not clear, although it is probably a reflection of different methods of estimation. Presumably, local aggregate producers have conducted more through tests to determine potential yields from resources under their control.
SECTOR ANALYSIS
A key issue relevant to the General Plan is whether the likely resources within the American River Resources Area which are south of Jackson Highway and (except for Sector F-6 generally not owned by aggregate companies are viable areas for future surface mining operation. Portions of this area are designated as Aggregate Resources on the prior General Plan land use map, but corresponding (SM) Surface Mining Combining zones are not widely in place. Encroachment of incompatible land uses may affect the practicability of mining these resources. A second concern was whether aggregate resource planning and zoning designations have been effective in protecting the resource.
To address this question, staff conducted a sector analysis for the resource area south of Jackson Highway. The Boundaries of the sectors, as shown in Figure 10, were determined by the State in its 1985 study, and generally exclude agricultural-residential parcels. The MRZ-2 designation stands for Mineral Resource Zones where there is a high likelihood of significant deposits of PCC-grade aggregates. The small sectors I-1 and I-4 were not evaluated. The analysis included the following tasks:
1. Identify additional residential and other construction activity between 1977 (when aggregate resource protection was first established) and 1989, using aerial prints from those years.
2. Identify land use entitlements, including rezones, use permits and parcel maps, granted in each sector between 1977 and 1989.
3. Determine the number of agricultural-residential home sites on the periphery of each sector.
4. Determine the acreage and distribution of protective zoning designations.
The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 14. Based on this information, review of ownership patterns and discussion with aggregate industry representatives, Sector F-6, F-12, and I-3 have the greatest potential for future surface mining. Much of Sector F-6 is under ownership of local aggregate producers, it has large acreage and potential yield, 71 percent is zoned for surface mining, and it has good access to existing processing plants. Sector F-12 has over 300 acres, the second highest potential yield, good access to existing processing plants, and an average parcel size of 15 acres, although only sector south of Elder Creek Road that P.K. Morton recommended as economical to mine. At 340 acres it is the second largest sector, although the yield is estimated to be only 78 percent of Sector F-12. This reflects the decline in thickness and quality of the resource moving southward. Average parcel size is 11 acres, and 63 percent of the sector is zoned industrial reserve. Its major drawback is relatively poor access to existing processing plants.
The remaining sectors are considerably smaller in size, potential yield, and average parcel size. Surrounding agricultural-residential uses and approved and pending projects further constrain several of them. Local aggregate producers have demonstrated little interest in the area, believing that potential yields do not warrant major investment at this time. Moreover, they are proximate to the Central Valley Traction Railroad, which is under consideration as a major transportation corridor for urban expansion.
### MATHER AIR BASE
The State study for the Sacramento-Fairfield Production-Consumption Region did not quantify aggregate potential underlying Mather Air Force Base because of assumed long-term unavailability. Renewed interest in the aggregate potential underlying Mather has surfaced with the prospect of its closure in 1995. Recovery of the resource could greatly extend Sacramento County's resource base and defer depletion of a local source of aggregate by several years.
<>
### Figure 10
## MRZ-2 Sectors
SOURCE: DMG-SR156
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
### TABLE 14
### MRZ-2 SECTOR ANALYSIS
### Sectors
| | F-2 | F-6 | F-12 | I-2 | I-3 | I-5 | I-6 |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Acres[^p69-1] | 73.4 | 681.331 | 314.7 | 203.0 | 339.6 | 161.3 | 161.9 |
| Est. tons[^p69-2] | | | | | | | |
| (In Millions) | 3.8 | 37.6 | 15.6 | 7.3 | 12.2 | 5.8 | 5.8 |
| | | | | | | | |
| Total Zoning | M1,Mlf | M1,M1f,M1SM | M1,Mlf | | M1,Mlf= | | |
| (acres) | &M2=44.3 | M2f-69.9 | M1SM=211.8 | M1=17.9 | 125.8 | | |
| Percent | 60% | 10% | 67% | 9% | 37% | None | None |
| | | | | | | | |
| | IRf, | IRSM,IR | IRSM,IR,AG, | IR,IRF= | IR,IRF= | AG20,AG20 | AG20= |
| | IR=24.7 | F=596.1 | 160=102.9 | 185.1 | 213.8 | F=85.2 | 155.7 |
| | 34% | 88% | 33% | 91% | 63% | 53% | 96% |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | AR-1 | | | | A10,A10F | A-10 |
| | AR-2=4.4 | AR-2=15.3 | | | | =76.1 | =6.2 |
| | 6% | 2% | None | None | None | 47% | 4% |
| | | | | | | | |
| % of Area In Floodplain: | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| Zoned: MIF,M2F | | | | | | | |
| | 5% | 3% | 19% | None | 18% | None | None |
| | | | | | | | |
| Zoned: IR(F),Ag-20(F) | | | | | | | |
| | 26% | 19% | None | 33% | 31% | 6% | None |
| | | | | | | | |
| Zoned: AR10(F) | | | | | | | |
| | None | None | None | None | None | 24% | None |
| | | | | | | | |
| % of Area in M1 (SM) & IR(SM): | | | | | | | |
| | None | 71% | 15% | None | None | None | None |
| | | | | | | | |
| Potential tonnages lost due to M1, M2: | | | | | | | |
| (In millions) | 2.3 | 3.6 | 9.0 | 0.3 | 4.5 | None | None |
| | | | | | | | |
| # of Parcels | | | | | | | |
| per sector | 26 | 91 | 23 | 26 | 30 | 26 | 8 |
| | | | | | | | |
| Average parcel | | | | | | | |
| size | 3.0 | 7.5 | 15.0 | 8.0 | 11.0 | 6.0 | 20.0 |
[^p69-1]: Sector acreage may not approximate actual acreage due to scale and planimeter errors.
[^p69-2]: Portland concrete cement grade aggregate classified by CDMG
The Board of Supervisors has formed the Sacramento Area Commission on Mather Conversion (SACOMC) to study and make recommendations concerning the productive reuse of Mather AFB. Committees of SACOMC have received information from the aggregated industry, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and the California Division of Mines and Geology that indicate construction quality aggregates exit at Mather AFB. A subcommittee examining natural resources issues associated with Mather reuse alternatives has indicated in its report that the potential yield in the southeastern part of the base may approach 41,385 tons/acre and that as many as 1000 acres might potentially be mined (Figure 11). This would amount potentially to an additional 15 years of aggregate reserves. However, more detailed site specific geologic date is needed before the feasibility of mining as an interim reuse option can be determined. Additional sampling and testing will occur in the fall of 1990.
### ALTERNATIVE SOURCES
Potential sources of quality aggregate, in addition to the deposits classified as MRZ-2 exist within Sacramento County. These potential sources lie within areas that are classified MRZ-3, and include igneous rocks of volcanic origin and metamorphic rocks. In addition, untested MRZ-3 alluvial deposits that may provide alternative sources of PCC-grade aggregate include: dredge tailings; channel deposits; and beds of the River Bank, Modesto and Laguna formation.
Alluvium classified MRZ-3 includes river-channel deposits and dredge tailings in the Sacramento-Folsom area. Alluvium is considered desirable as PCC-grade aggregate because of its texture and ease of mining. Future PCC-grade aggregate needs may require a transition from the mining of premium quality alluvial materials in MRZ-2 areas to the mining of an inferior grade alluvium that requires more extensive and costly processing.
Additional PCC-grade aggregate exists in the floodplain and channel of Cosumnes River. State Geologists indicated that the quality of aggregates are mined along with topsoil at Wilton Road, and aggregate producers have purchased at least one tract in the Cosumnes flood plain. Further evaluation of the resource needs be conducted.
Potential crushed rock aggregate massive consolidated rock formations may provide an alternative to depleted PCC-grade alluvial deposits east of Sacramento in Placer and El Dorado Counties. However, economic considerations indicate that crushed rock cannot compete with alluvium PCC-grade aggregate resources that are available in the Sacramento-Fairfield Production-Consumption Region.
Another out-of-county source is the Yuba River near Marysville, a 40 mile distance from central Sacramento. This area represents a vast aggregate resource of high quality aggregate. Despite the distance, it remains a realistic future alternative. The Yuba River dredge fields contain a reported 1.5 billion tons or more of potential aggregate resources. The Yuba River is a more viable source than Cache Creek with Yolo County's current mining ordinance that limits mining below the channels Thalweg line.
<>
### *Figure 11*
### **Mather Air Force Base**
## **Potential Aggregate Mining Areas**
#### Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
(blank page)
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
## C. SOIL RESOURCES
## BACKGROUND REPORT
### INTRODUCTION
Sacramento County's successful agricultural economy is, and will remain, dependent upon the productivity of the soil. Three soil regions make up the County. The dark soils of the Delta area are primarily fertile peat comprised of slow to decay organic matter. The geologically recent flood basin soils, rich with organic and mineral compounds, are alluvium formed by historic and ancient flood depositing from swollen rivers overflowing into adjacent floodplains. Lastly, the bench soils, elevated above the spreading basins are river terraces and due to erosion and leaching lack the high percentage of organic material found in the Delta and flood basin soils.
### SOIL CLASSIFICATION
To classify soils within Sacramento County two separate complimentary systems, devised by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), can be used for ranking capability and suitability for crop use. Agricultural capability, an eight class series, defines soils based on physical and chemical characteristics. The soils suitability class reflects soil potential for suitable crops and prioritizes soils as to level of importance to crop production.
As defined by SCS, classes I and II are considered to be prime soil because the high level of fertility imposes few limitations on agricultural production, and almost all crops can be grown successfully on these soils. Limited agricultural soils are grouped into classes III and IV either because few crops can be grown on these soils, special conservation measures are required, or both conditions exist. Classes V, VI, and VII include soils that are suited primarily for rangeland, woodland, or wildlife habitat. Finally, soils and landforms that are unsuited for agricultural use are placed in Class VIII.
The California State Conservation Department, in conjunction with the SCS, has also adopted categorical definitions of suitably important farmland for land use inventory purposes. These definitions recognized the land's suitability for agricultural production, rather than solely reflecting the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil. To this end, the Important Farmland Map Series was developed, based on SCS soil surveys. It includes seven categories: prime (of national significance), statewide importance, unique, local importance, grazing, urban and built-up land, and other. The last two classes will not be addressed in this document. Minimum map unit for all these categories is ten acres.
Prime farmland is land which has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for crop production, as well as high soil quality, appropriate growing season, and adequate moisture supply to sustained high crop yields. Water management including reserves, transport, and delivery are assumed. Prime farmland must have been used for the production of irrigated crops within the last three years. Water source for the area must be available to produce crops eight out of ten years.
Farmland of statewide importance is land other than prime farmland which has a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for crop production. The definition is similar to prime farmland except crop production characteristics are considered good, not the best. It must have been used for production in the last three years and have a developed irrigation supply available eight out of ten years.
Unique farmland does not meet the definition for prime or statewide importance, but is being used for specific high economic value crops. It has a special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality or high yields of specific crops. Such crops include, olives, grapes, walnuts, and pistachios.
Farmland of local importance is a category representing agricultural lands important at the local level. Farmland of local importance represents the county level of interest and commonly includes dry land agriculture or soils that if cultivated and irrigated would be prime or state-wide important farmland. Representatives from Sacramento County's farming community under the auspices of the State Conservation Department have developed a formal definition for land of local importance: "Lands which do not qualify as prime, statewide, or unique designation but are currently irrigated crops or pasture or nonirrigated crops; lands that would be prime or statewide designation and have been improved for irrigation but are now idle; and lands which currently support confined livestock, poultry operation or aquaculture."
The acreage breakdown as defined by the suitability classification for Sacramento County as of 1989 is 124,301 acres (19.6%) of the total county area of 635,825 acres are classed as prime; 80,398 (12.6%) are classed as statewide; and 12,130 (1.9%) are classed as unique. Due to recent changes in the definition, locally important farmland acreage is being recalculated.
### RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
The continued viability of agricultural crop production is related directly to the preservation and conservation of the County's highly productive soils. To this end, farm community members have entered into agreements with the SCS to create three Resource Conservation Districts (RCD) in the southern portion of the County -- Florin, Lower Cosumnes, and Sloughhouse RCDs. In so doing district members are provided technical and financial assistance from the SCS. Technical assistance regarding such topics as crop rotation practices, irrigation technologies, wind row plantings, and soil enhancement are provided through individual contact with SCS staff scientists and conservationists. Additional education and information outreach
programs include media contacts, workshops, seminars, and tours of farms practicing soil and water conservation methods.
The Florin Road Conservation District is 91,480 acres and encompasses the Laguna and Morrison Creek drainages from the Sacramento River east to the County line. Farming is principally irrigated pasture, sudan grass and clover seeds, dry farmed and irrigated grain, hay pears, and row crops. Practically all irrigation water is trapped from the depleting groundwater table underlying the area.
The Sloughhouse RCD totals 197,440 acres of farm and rangeland lying on both sides of the Cosumnes River up stream from Highway 99. The District was formed to assist farmers and ranchers to effectively solve resource conservation problems.
The Lower Cosumnes RCD encompasses 98,000 acres and is situated in the Delta, extending up the Sacramento River to the lower Cosumnes River. The RCD was formed to assist landowners with the use and conservation of soil, water, and other related resources. Active participation by all members of the farm community within each district is encouraged by SCS, but is not mandatory. Some farm community members with these districts prefer to remain outside the RCD's jurisdiction and thus do not benefit from the technical and financial benefits related to soil conservation methods provided by SCS.
### SOIL PRODUCTIVITY ISSUES
Sacramento County is fortunate in that the long-term agricultural productivity of its soils is generally not at issue as elsewhere in the Central Valley. Salt buildup in soils, perched water tables, toxic mineral concentrations, and wind erosion are, with two exceptions discussed below, not a problem.
Similarly, whereas overgrazing on fragile soils has significantly increased soil erodibility in some counties, grazing in Sacramento County causes only nominal damage to soil productivity. Grazing lands are concentrated in upland areas adjacent to flood plains and in the lowest reaches of the Sierra foothills. Limited oak and riparian woodland exist in some locations but, due in part to grazing, regeneration of woodland is slow to occur. Native California bunch grasses have long ago been replaced by grasses of Mediterranean origin. These introduced species are shallow rooted and develop a matting which reduces the soil moisture holding capacity and inhibits sprouting of native species. However, the grasses do exist in adequate amounts to retard erosion. Soils in these areas are usually not considered highly erodible due to a well defined matrix of organic and mineral compounds and the lack of topographic relief. Furthermore, most cattlemen in the area practice reasonably wise grazing and soil conservation methods.
Sacramento County's most significant soil productivity issue concerns the rich and fertile Delta peat soils, a sizeable portion of which are being lost to oxidation. These soils are undergoing subsidence that will potentially reduce or eliminate agriculture on some areas if conservation and sound soil management are not practiced. The Delta peat soils are made up of organic soils
ranging from unaltered plant materials to accumulation of highly altered structureless organics of jellylike consistency. Almost continuous submergence of peat prevents or greatly retards natural decomposition through oxidation. To grow crops on Delta peat soil, levees were erected creating diked off islands. This prevented continual submergence and allowed the peat soils to dry for cultivation. Drying saturated peat can reduce its volume by 50 percent causing land, soils, and surrounding levees to subside. The largest contributors to subsidence are oxidation of peat soils (exposing peat to the drying factors associated with air), shrinkage, and subsequent wind erosion.
The elimination of fertile soil through oxidation is not the immediate problem, although it is a long-term concern. Delta soils are 10 to 20 feet thick, and at an inch loss per year will still be productive for many decades. Rather, oxidation induced subsidence is the controlling factor for the future of agricultural production in the Delta because it has the potential to greatly reduce the ability of levees to withstand inundation. Subsidence of levees and crop covered islands is occurring, though levees lower at a slower rate due primarily to a slow oxidation process from reduced tillage and irrigation. The ability of levees to withstand major storm events is thus continually being reduced. Low bayward islands will lead to increased wave action on adjoining levees and eventual inundation may lead to succession of more inland Delta islands being inundated. Raising and strengthening levees to provide additional protection is exceedingly costly and may not be feasible. At some point, it will not be justifiable to repair levee breaks and pump islands dry.
Soil conservation efforts sensitive to the process of oxidation would lessen the rate at which Delta islands are subsiding. Ceasing all tillage of bayward islands, specifically Sherman Island, is advisable to moderate the subsidence process and maintain viable levees on this key island, thereby helping to protect the soil and agricultural productivity of Delta islands to the east.
A less significant, terms of acreage effected, but no less severe problem arising from subsidence of bayward Delta islands is salt water intrusion of subsurface fresh water. River water runoff during years of comparatively normal precipitation has been sufficient to retard salt water from intruding into the fresh water table. However, the rate of salt water intrusion of west Delta islands increases during years of below normal precipitation, causing damage to crops irrigated with subsurface water contaminated with salt water. Efforts to develop salt tolerant crops and a reduction in the subsidence rate might enable farming to continue on west Delta islands for a limited time. However, continuing crop production accelerates peat oxidation and potentially lessens irrigation water quality from salt water intrusion of subsurface fresh water sources.
### URBAN CONVERSION OF CROPLAND
In recent years the County's productive cropland has been increasingly converted to urban uses. Between 1980 and 1989 total acreage in production fell from 374,857 acres to 252,555 acres, a decline of 122,302 acres. The 1989 figure was derived by combining harvested acreage of field crops (218,580 acres), fruit and nut crops (11,780), seed crops (10,310), vegetable crops (10,770), and nursery production (1,115). In 1980, of the 630,400 acres comprising Sacramento County, 59.5 percent were in agricultural production. In 1989 this figure has dropped to only 40 percent. Gross value of production has not fallen as significantly, in part due to inflationary factors and demand for Central Valley grain, such as rice. In 1980 gross value was figured at $221,189,400. In 1989 that had fallen marginally to $216,760,000. As conversion of productive farmland continues, it permanently commits agricultural land to a nonproductive category, from the agricultural perspective. At the same time, there has been a decline in the area of land most suitable for agriculture.
To curb this decline and preserve soil productivity, and thus greater crop potential, programs to maintain prime, statewide and locally significant farmlands need to be instigated. One such option would be to establish policy which seeks to protect and maintain suitable agricultural lands within the County. Mitigation procedures for development of prime, statewide, or locally significant soils would necessitate off-site mitigation procedures. The mechanism for implementing this policy could be purchase of transfer of development rights from nearby farmlands as CEQA required mitigation for loss of productive agricultural land. Purchase of development rights would simply involve an acre for acre purchase of development rights in an area designated for preservation.
Transfer of development rights involves a more complicated ordinance requiring property owners in a designated development district to acquire a specified amount of development rights from land owners in a designated preservation area before they can develop in accordance with an adopted plan. Such a program would allow more flexibility and predictability for developers and probably would cost less.
Measures to preserve and maintain Sacramento County's most productive soils need to be implemented. The SCS assists agricultural producers in maintaining the viability of soil by offering expertise and financial assistance in soil conservation methods. The prime agricultural lands of the Delta are in danger of inundation if subsidence continues. Bayward islands, such as Sherman, should reduce or cease agricultural production to lessen subsidence and the potential for successive inundation of up Delta islands. Lost acreage of agricultural lands through conversion to urban uses is permanently withdrawing prime and statewide significant soils from agricultural production. Consideration of the inherent value of such land should be closely examined when deciding to develop or not develop on fertile soils.
(blank page)
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
## D. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
## BACKGROUND REPORT
### 1. INTRODUCTION
The County of Sacramento is fortunate to have several locations where vestiges of the once vast and diverse Central Valley natural habitat areas still exist. Habitat areas include riparian zones, riverine habitats, wetlands, woodlands, and grasslands.
Remaining marsh and riparian areas in the County include backwater basins and riparian woodlands along the Sacramento, American, and Cosumnes Rivers and other smaller waterways, and in the Delta. These biologically dynamic areas host thousands of waterfowl migrating along the Central Valley leg of the Pacific Flyway. In addition, numerous other migratory and resident species, some of which are listed as threatened or endangered, inhabit the County's natural areas. Species include majestic colony birds such as the American egret and great blue heron, the opportunistic coyote, the industrious beaver, deer, and elusive grey fox and bobcat.
The wetland and riparian areas are regarded as the County's most important resource. Such habitat becomes all the more significant when viewed against the acreage lost since the time of European settlement. Approximately 95 percent of the Central Valley's wetlands have disappeared in the last 100 years, reducing habitat for millions of migratory waterfowl. Riparian habitat has suffered a similar fate. In the Sacramento River Valley only 25,000 of the estimated 500,000 acres of the riparian habitat existing in 1850 exists today.
The aquatic environment of the County supports tens of thousands of anadromous fish and rears a comparable amount of resident species. Anadromous fish include salmon, bass, shad, and sturgeon. Resident fish include trout, catfish, sunfish, and bullhead. With the development of urban areas and water projects, fisheries have declined. This loss has been generated by habitat destruction, water diversion, and temperature increases.
Extending out from the riparian zone are the distinctive upland habitats of the Central Valley, scattered with oak, blanketed with grazinglands, and dotted with vernal pools. Native oaks, signature trees of the Central Valley have declined in population over the years to accommodate agriculture and development. Concentrated efforts will need to be undertaken if we are to preserve the isolated groves and diminishing woodlands. Native grasslands have virtually disappeared due to grazing and development. The once prolific and well adapted bunchgrass has been displaced by invasive weeds from the Mediterranean region. The vernal pools which once
dotted vast areas of the Central Valley landscape, are found only in concentrations in the southern
section of the County. The pools sustain flora and fauna adapted to the ephemeral nature of these
small yet vibrant habitats.
The County's natural vegetation and wildlife resources are important to the quality of life
Sacramento area residents have come to enjoy and are vital to the maintenance of healthy
interwoven ecosystems. Detailed knowledge of the resource holdings, as well as thoughtful
protection strategies, will ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy, explore, and
appreciate the Central Valley's unique habitat areas.
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
### D. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES
### BACKGROUND REPORT
#### 2. WILDLIFE OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Threatened and Endangered Animals. The Fish and Game Department maintains a list of threatened and endangered species in California. State and federal laws protect the habitat of these species through the environmental review process. Several additional species are of special concern or candidates to make the protected list. The table summarizes Sacramento's special status animal species. The Department's classification scheme is defined as follows:
A species is a candidate when the Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed it as being under review by the Department to determine whether listing as threatened or endangered is warranted, or when it is the subject of a proposed rulemaking by the Commission to list as threatened or endangered.
A species is threatened when although not presently threatened with extinction, it is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management efforts.
A species is endangered when it is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion of, its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change of habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition or disease.
Waterfowl. Sacramento County is an important part of the Central Valley leg of the Pacific Flyway, where millions of waterfowl winter during their annual migration. The Beach/Stone Lakes area is the most important waterfowl area in the County, with 10,000 to 15,000 waterfowl using North Stone Lake alone in the early 1970's. Tundra swans, snow geese, white-fronted geese, Canada geese, mallards, pintail, blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal, green-winged teal, wood ducks, scaup, and ruddy ducks are found in substantial numbers on the water surfaces and surrounding vegetation.
Among the many non-game waterfowl species in Sacramento, the greater sandhill crane deserves special attention. Tall, stately birds with interesting behavior and ringing calls, they are one of California's more ancient avian inhabitants. The population in California is down to about 3,000 birds wintering in the Central Valley. Cranes are among the least tolerant of birds to human interference.
The great blue heron and snowy egret are other striking water birds frequently observed foraging in fields and wetland areas. Several rookeries exist in Sacramento, which require minimal disturbance by human activity due to the birds' sensitivity.
Upland Game Birds. The ring-necked pheasant is a handsome game bird found throughout the County, but more commonly in interspersed agriculture, grassland, and riparian habitats. The lower Cosumnes River typifies this habitat mix and supports densities of 10 to 50 pheasants per 100 acres. Hunting opportunities are primarily limited to hunting clubs licensed by the Department of Fish and Game and to private hunting. There is a shortage of clubs throughout the state and especially in Sacramento.
Mourning doves and California quail are also common throughout Sacramento. A population of between 50 to 80 wild turkeys inhabits the upper American River and Aerojet lands. A second smaller population can be found in the vicinity of Rancho Seco.
Raptors. Sacramento and other foothill counties serve as major California breeding and wintering areas for numerous raptor species. They are found throughout Sacramento County, but the oak woodland and associated grasslands of the east County are the prime habitat area. Bald eagles nest east of Folsom Lake just outside the County and are an irregular winter visitor. Golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, red-shouldered hawks, and Cooper's hawk are the dominant foothill raptors. The northern harrier, Cooper's hawk, Swainson's hawk, and burrowing owl are species of special concern to the state and are comparatively common in Sacramento County. (See Table 15)
Deer. Mule deer reside in Sacramento County, but not in particularly large numbers. They are most concentrated on the oak woodlands of the east county. Densities may reach 20 per square mile in the vicinity of the Cosumnes and Deer Creek. Small resident populations of deer also exist in the lower Cosumnes and along the American River. There are no public hunting opportunities for deer in Sacramento County.
Fur Bearing Animals. Beaver, mink, river otter, raccoon, opossum, bobcat, badger, long-tail weasel, ringtail, grey fox and coyote occur in varying numbers along the riparian woodlands of Sacramento. Beaver dams periodically cause problems along waterways and have to be removed. Some beavers exist in the lower Delta, particularly the dead-end sloughs, but they are more common in San Joaquin County.
# PLANTS OF SPECIAL CONCERN
Rare and Endangered Plants. The California Native Plant Society's inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants in California lists 10 species that have been found in Sacramento County which are characterized as rare or endangered according to either federal, state or California Native Plant Society definitions (Table 16). Six species are vernal pool species. California Hibiscus is found along the Sacramento River and is severely threatened by
channelization of the river. The Antioch Dunes Evening Primrose is extremely rare and known from only one site in Sacramento County.
### TABLE 15
### SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES THAT ARE KNOWN OR HAVE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY [^(a)]
(b)
| Species | Legal Status (Federal/State) | Habitats | Occurrence |
| :--- | :---: | :--- | :--- |
| Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocercus californicus dimorphus) | T/C | Elderberry shrubs in riparian habitats | At least 7[^] reported sites in Sacramento. |
| Giant garter snake | C/T | Marshlands, ditches, and adjacent uplands | At least 20[^] reported sites in Sacramento |
| American white pelican | -/SSC | Feeds in shallow waters | Migrants occur in spring & early summer |
| Double-crested cormorant | -/SSC | Nests in trees; forages in water bodies | Year-round resident Nesting sites reported at North Stone Lake. |
| Bald eagle | E/E | Feeds in winter at lakes | An irregular winter visitor. Nesting sites at Folsom Lake just outside County. |
| Northern harrier | -/SSC | Dense, tall grasslands or seasonal marsh for nesting; grasslands & marsh for feeding | Beach Lake/Stone Lake & treatment plant breeding areas. |
| Cooper's hawk | -/SSC | Riparian and oak woodland | Regular migrant and winter resident; breeds in oak woodland of east County and American River. |
| Swainson's hawk | C/T | Large trees for nesting; alfalfa or hay fields for feeding | Common throughout the County |
| Peregrine falcon | E/E | Marsh, grassland | Possible irregular migrant. |
### TABLE 15 (Cont.)
### SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES THAT ARE
### KNOWN OR HAVE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY
(b)
| Species | Legal Status (Federal/State) | Habitats | Occurrence |
| :--- | :---: | :--- | :--- |
| Prairie falcon | -/SSC | Grassland | Possible irregular migrant and wintering bird. |
| California gull | -/SSC | Water bodies | Nonbreeding resident |
| California yellow-billed cuckoo | C/T | Extensive riparian woodland | No records. |
| Burrowing owl | -/SSC | Natural or artificial burrows for nesting; grasslands for foraging | Nests at several locations in Sacramento County. |
| Short-eared owl | -/SSC | Dense grasslands and marshlands | Probable irregular winter visitor. |
| Willow flycatcher | -/SSC | Willow scrub | Probable migrant. |
| Purple martin | -/SSC | Riparian woodland | Reported nesting sites found in or near downtown Sacramento |
| Tricolored blackbird | -/SSC | Emergent wetlands for breeding; marsh and grasslands for feeding | At least 24[^ ]reported nesting sites in Sacramento. |
| Bank swallow | -/T | Riparian river bluffs | Reported nesting site on Cosumnes River near Rancho Murieta. |
| Longeared Owl | -/SSC | Riparian woodland | Known to nest in Sacramento County. |
| Black Shouldered Kite | -/P | Grasslands | Roost in Sacramento County. |
Notes: (a) Adapted from draft Urban Forest Master Plan, Jones & Stokes Associates.
(b) Legal status abbreviations are: E = Endangered, T = Threatened,
C = Candidate for listing, and SSC = Species of special concern.
P = Protected
### TABLE 16
### RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY
| Scientific Name | Common Name | Status Federal | Status State | CNPS | Habitat |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :--- |
| Aster chilensis var lentus | Suisun marsh aster | C | -- | RE | Brackish marsh |
| Downingea humilis | Dwarf downingea | -- | -- | RE | Vernal pools |
| Gratiola heterosepala | Boggs lake hedgehyssop | C | E | RE | Vernal pools |
| Hibiscus californicus | California hibiscus | C | -- | RE | Freshwater marsh |
| Lathyrus jepsonii var jepsonii | Delta tule pea | C | -- | RE | Brackish marsh |
| Legenere limosa | Green's legenere | C | R | RE | Vernal pools |
| Lilaeopsis masonii | Mason's liaeopsis | -- | E | RE | Brackish marsh |
| Orcuttia viscida | Sacramento orcutt grass | E | E | RE | Vernal pools |
| Orcuttia tenuis | Slender orcutt grass | E | E | RE | Vernal pools |
| Oenothera deltoides howellii | Antioch dunes evening primrose | E | E | RE | Inland dunes |
| Plagiobothrys hystriculus | Bearded popcorn flower | C | -- | RE | Vernal pools |
C = Candidate
R = Rare
E = Endangered
CNPS = California Native Plant Society
Native Wildflowers and Bunch Grass. Native grassland species are of interest primarily because they have been so widely displaced by invasive weeds from the Mediterranean region. Among the common species are perennial bunch grasses such as purple stifa and nodding stifa, pine bluegrass, California melka, small flowered melka squirreltail and wildrye. Though none of these species are rare or endangered, grasslands dominated by these species are rare and considered a significant biological resource.
Extensive farming and grazing in Sacramento have taken their toll on native grasslands. The only reported purple needlegrass community of any significance is a little over 1 acre in size at the South Florin multicultural park site. There, average purple needlegrass cover ranged from 19 to 25%, about the same as for Jepson Prairie grasslands in Yolo County.
Numerous species of native grassland wildflowers exist in Sacramento County. Except for vernal pool areas, staff is not aware of any wildflower assemblages that are noted for their showy displays in Sacramento County. The foothill woodlands along Scott and Latrobe Road are identified by the Open Space Task Force as having spring wildflower displays. The Audubon Society also notes the American River Bluffs above Lake Natoma as having some of the most varied and dense floral displays in Sacramento County.
Oaks. If any one plant species could be said to symbolize the Sacramento Valley, it would be the majestic spreading valley oak. No other tree is so characteristic of the fertile valley and no other approaches it in its unexampled parklike affect on the Valley floor. Favoring deep fertile soils and shallow watersheds, valley oaks are concentrated in riverbottoms of South Sacramento County. The largest stands grow near Elk Grove, Galt, and along natural drainages. Their numbers decrease as one moves eastward from lowland to drier, less fertile foothills.
The blue oak is most common in the dry rocky foothill areas, forming large stands in the Cosumnes-Deer Creek drainage. It is also frequent in the bluffs above the American River, east of Watt Avenue and in Carmichael, Orangevale and Fair Oaks. The majority of interior live oaks, on the other hand, grow along creekways, especially in the northeast County.
## VEGETATION TYPES
Detailed evaluations of vegetative cover types include numerous specific classifications. The detailed natural area inventory maps described below will incorporate as many specific vegetative cover types as possible. Discussion here focuses on the major vegetation groupings in Sacramento.
Riparian. Riparian woodlands are widely regarded as the most important wildlife habitat in California. There are the most structurally diverse of all habitats, with trees, shrubs, vines, brush, forbs and emergent vegetation combining to provide a diverse range of microhabitats, nesting sites, cover, and food for a greater variety of species than any other wildlife habitat in the state. This in turn enhances the wildlife value of adjacent habitat types, including agricultural lands.
Riparian vegetation also provides shade for aquatic habitats, and helps prevent streambank erosion.
Riparian habitat becomes all the more significant when viewed against the acreage which has been lost over the years. In the Sacramento River Valley only 25,000 acres of an estimated 500,000 acres existing in 1850 remain today. Although the pace of conversion has slowed, hundreds of acres continue to be converted in California every year.
Willow scrub or riparian shrub brush is a successional stage in woodland riparian development characterized by thickets of shrub-form willows, blackberry, wildrose, alder and occasional trees. It varies in composition from one locality to another, reflecting differences in topography, disturbance history, and surrounding vegetation.
Dredger tailings where ponds have formed between the tailing piles support a specialized cottonwood dominated riparian environment of comparatively limited diversity frequented occasionally by duck, deer and other species.
Freshwater Marsh. The second most diverse of wildlife habitats in terms of species supported, freshwater marshes provide unique cover, nesting sites, and feeding habitat for wildlife. Ducks, geese and many waterbirds depend on them for feeding, breeding and nesting. Freshwater marshes in the Central Valley make it a primary wintering area on the Pacific Flyway. Other values include high biological productivity, the continuing source of extensive peat deposits in the Delta, and contributing to water purification by metabolizing excess nutrients and acting as a sediment trap.
In the Delta, freshwater tidal marshes were the dominant habitat prior to reclamation. Today, they are found in small patches and narrow bands throughout the Delta on sand bars, dredge spoil islands, natural meander deposits, around the margins of larger islands and along many miles of waterways at the base of levees where silt accumulates. Tule islands and shrubby marshes are among the marsh types found in the Delta. Depth of water is a key determinant of emergent cover and species association. Typical marshes include a mix of open water and associations of tule and reed grass.
Non-tidal freshwater marshes are usually associated with lake or patches of open water, or streams which have relatively calm patterns of flow and deposition. Usually the underlying soil is high in clay content or underlain by hardpan, and water does not readily percolate downward. Cattails, tules, rushes, sedges, barnyard grass and nutgrass are common, with willow, dogwood, button brush and other shrubs established on high margins of the marsh.
Seasonal Marshes. These marshes are characterized primarily by annual vegetation adapted to a yearly cycle of winter flooding and summer drawdown. Relatively impervious soils are essential to seasonal marshes. They are also important as a feeding and breeding area for wintering and resident waterfowl, water birds and shorebirds. Pheasant also may occur in high numbers.
Typical species include watergrass, smart weed, cocklebur, yellow nutsedge, curly dock, and drought-stressed stands of swamp timothy.
Vernal Pools. Vernal pools are a type of seasonal wetland supporting annual grasses and forbs that germinate, grow, and mature during later winter and early spring. They are unique, complex, and highly specialized ecosystems which have evolved within shallow ephemeral pools located on soils containing near surface hardpan layers. The characteristics and species composition of vernal pools are determined by the underlying geologic formation and associated surface soils. Thus, vernal pools associated with alluvial floodplains low terrace and high terrace land forms each have distinct attributes. Vernal pools sustain a specially adapted flora of approximately 200 species, including some of the state's rarest and most unusual plants. They also provide seasonal wetland habitats for vertebrate and invertebrate fauna, also including rare species.
Oak Woodlands. Oak woodlands are found in the eastern portion of the County in moderate to dense stands comprising blue oak, interior live oak and valley oak. Some California black walnut and cottonwood exist at better locations. This is good habitat for deer, gray squirrels, other rodents and birds, particularly in the vicinity of streams and ponds.
Oak grassland is a transition zone between woodlands and grassland. Majestic valley oaks, outstanding in the field, typify this community.
Grasslands. Generally grasslands are limited to species of annual plants with low wildlife values. Invader species such as rip brome, foxtail brome, wild oats, and star thistle are often dominant. Native perennial bunch grasses, once dominant in the valley grassland ecology, are now limited to occasional clumps, if they are found at all. Species composition is affected by grazing practices. Wildflowers are occasionally numerous, particularly near rock outcroppings and in areas where grazing is light.
With resident animal species limited to rodents, grassland has comparatively lower wildlife values than other cover types. Large expanses of foothill grassland in the east County provide valuable prey area for raptors. Where grassland meets riparian, wetland and woodland habitats, the edge effect created by intermixing species enhances diversity.
Agricultural Lands. Although they are not a natural habitat type, agricultural lands are not without wildlife value. Geese, pheasant, and other species feed on grain crops, and losses are occasionally significant. Agricultural lands can often be managed to enhance wildlife values with minimal crop loss.
### FISHERIES
The rivers, streams, and water bodies within or passing through Sacramento County provide an important habitat for a diverse assemblage of fish, including both anadromous and resident species. Anadromous fish include chinook salmon, steelhead trout, striped bass, American shad, sturgeon, and Pacific lamprey. Resident fish can be separated into warm water gamefish (such as
large mouth bass, crappie, catfish, bullhead, and sunfish), cold water gamefish (such as rainbow and brown trout), and nongame fish (such as Sacramento squawfish, Sacramento sucker, and carp). However, gamefish consideration could be extended to these nongame species since recent immigrant peoples catch these species for food. Specific population numbers on most species in Sacramento County are currently not available.
The aquatic environment in the County supports tens of thousands of anadromous fish and rear a sizeable amount of both cold and warm water species. However, with expanding development and neglect of the habitat, fisheries have declined. This loss has been generated by habitat destruction, water temperature increases, water diversion, and non-point source pollution runoff. While license fees are increasing, recreational fishers are finding the habitat in shambles and the fishing mediocre. Some waterways are no longer fished because dumping of trash has ruined the natural character and is in the process of destroying the fisheries. To reverse the decline of fisheries the County needs to pursue policy that increases propagation, preserves and protects existing aquatic environments, and expands habitat.
Migratory Species: Chinook Salmon. The migratory species chinook salmon is economically the most important fish in the County. Annual commercial, ocean, and river sport catches of chinook reared in the Lower American River have averaged about 180,000 fish. In addition, approximately 45,000 chinook enter the Lower American during the four annual spawning runs - fall, late fall, winter, and spring. The fall run in both the American and Sacramento Rivers is the most abundant, comprising approximately 80 percent of the annual migrations. During very wet years a few chinook may also enter the Cosumnes River and Laguna, Deer, and Dry Creeks.
Chinook production is dependent on two sources, hatchery and natural production. The major factors effecting propagation from both sources are habitat availability, water diversion, and water temperature. Diversion of water and dramatic changes in discharge volume and timing have impacted habitat and reduced populations. Spawning habitat in both the Sacramento and American Rivers have been degraded by decreases in gravel shoals due to gravel retention behind upriver dams. Artificially high water temperatures in the Sacramento River and in the American near its confluence with the Sacramento River all but preclude spawning.
Resident Species. The warm water species prefer the vegetated shoreline areas where current velocity is low and cover is available. Shaded riverine aquatic habitat provides essential spawning cover for most warm water fish, including largemouth bass, bluegill, green sunfish, and crappie. Lower segments of the Cosumnes River and Dry Creek also support bullhead, Sacramento squawfish, Sacramento sucker, threadfin shad, and carp.
Warm water fisheries also exist along the canals and drainages in the County. Canals typically contain the same species found in the adjacent river. Some spawning occurs in canals, but population levels are maintained primarily through fish passage. Many species do quite well in canals that are not chemically treated or emptied of water.
The Delta and associated sloughs, along the southwestern reaches of the County, provide habitat for many warm water fish and functions as a nursery area for many migratory species. Much of the County fish stock, including stripped bass and shad, depend directly on the slow moving, nutrient rich waters of the Delta.
Fishing. The most popular sport fisheries are the anadromous fish; chinook in the fall, steelhead trout in winter, and shad in late spring. These are large fish that arrive by the thousands. Sport fishing of resident species, although not as popular, does attract many recreationists. Resident species are also a major component in the predator - prey relationship with the anadromous species and are vital in maintaining the ecological character of County waterways.
Hatcheries. There are two active fish hatcheries in the County. One along the American River at Nimbus Dam produces salmon and steelhead. The second facility in Elk Grove produces warm water fisheries. Hatcheries have supplemented natural propagation; however such facilities while increasing the population, do nothing for habitat, and arguably increase mortality. Hatcheries are also an expensive way to produce fish, averaging as much as two dollars per pound.
### HABITAT MAPPING
The Open Space Task Force specifically requested that the Planning Department inventory and map natural areas in Sacramento County. The Planning Department does not have sufficient staff or expertise to properly undertake a full inventory. However, there exists a number of vegetative cover data sources, including the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service wetlands inventory maps, the Delta Atlas, riparian vegetation maps, the Natural Diversity Database, and recently prepared vegetation maps for the floodplain within the scope of the Army Corps of Engineers current flood control studies of the American and Sacramento Rivers. Staff intends to simplify and combine this data on 7-1/2 minute topographic quadrangles.
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
## D. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES BACKGROUND REPORT
### 3. NATURAL AREAS OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE
This section identifies specific areas of the County which have special natural resource values. We have identified those areas which have been singled out by resource conservation agencies and private groups. Comments and descriptions are drawn from sources cited. The list is not all-inclusive, nor is there unanimous agreement on the significance of all areas. A map identifying natural areas of special significance will be available at the Board Workshop on August 8, 1989. An asterisk indicates all or a major part of the area is in public or quasipublic ownership.
#### MOKELUMNE/COSUMNES DRAINAGE
1. Lower Cosumnes River
Location: From junction of Cosumnes River and Cosumnes River Overflow (1 mile west of Dillard/99 Jcn) to confluence with Mokelumne. Includes Badger Creek from Cosumnes confluence to Highway 99.
Comments: Support more than 100,000 waterfowl; sandhill crane here; important and unique natural area; variety of hydrological conditions in small area at merging of Valley River and Delta systems; undammed, represents unaltered valley ecosystem; system of sloughs and marshes each slightly different in its ecological balance; intermixing of habitats enhances ecological diversity.
Sources: Cosumnes River Basin Resource Study identifies as a critical natural resource conservation area. The Study recommends the area from Twin Cities Road to the Mokelumne confluence as an ecological preserve. Identified as a significant resource area in the Delta Wildlife Protection Plan. Within this area the following are singled out by additional sources.
a. Cosumnes/Mokelumne Confluence Valley Oak Riparian Forest.*
Location: North and east of Mokelumne at confluence with Cosumnes.
Comments: Considerable microtopography; high water channels and intervening sand and silt bars; national natural landmark designation; state designated significant natural area.
Source: Fish and Game California Natural Areas Program.
b. Cosumnes Valley Oak Riparian Forests.
Location: Vicinity of confluence with Grissley and Bear Sloughs, and between 1/2 and 1-1/2 miles upstream from confluence.
Comments: Diverse forest of valley oak, cottonwood and ash dominated by oaks; outstanding example of valley oak forest; well balanced population of all diameters; many sloughs cut forest; excellent oak reproduction; national natural landmark designation; state designated significant natural area.
Source: Fish and Game California Natural Areas Program.
2. Deer Creek - Cosumnes Riparian Corridor
Location: From El Dorado County line to confluence of Cosumnes River and Cosumnes River Overflow.
Comments: Good riparian woodland cover along most of both banks of both water courses; occasional clear spots; generally is narrow band along each watercourse, occasionally widens to hardwood forest in valley portion.
Sources: Cosumnes River Basin Resource Study identifies as a resource conservation area; Open Space Task Force recommends an open space corridor to protect wildlife habitat. Within this area the following area is singled out by additional sources.
a. Lower Deer Creek
Location: Along Deer Creek 1 mile northeast of confluence with Cosumnes River between Grant Line Road and Dillard Road.
Comments: Grazing maintained savanna with valley oaks; Swainson's hawk observed; wetlands, riparian and valley oaks amid valley grassland; wildlife extremely plentiful; State designated significant natural area.
Sources: Fish and Game California Natural Areas Program; Audubon Society area of critical concern.
3. Badger Creek
Location: East of Highway 99 just south of Dillard Road interchange, including Badger Creek and North Fork Badger Creek extending just past Riley Road.
Comments: Wetlands, riparian and valley oaks amid valley grassland. Excellent example of historical Sacramento Valley habitat. Especially scenic from Highway 99.
Sources: Proposed natural resource conservation area in Cosumnes Basin Resources Study; Audubon Society area of critical concern; Open Space Task Force recommends high priority for open space preservation.
4. Lower Mokelumne, Dry Creek, Grissley and Bear Sloughs
Location: Mokelumne River from 1/2 mile east of Cosumnes confluence eastward to Dry Creek confluence; Dry Creek from Mokelumne confluence eastward four miles; Grissley Slough between Cosumnes River and Dry Creek.
Comments: Riparian vegetation along all water courses; excellent grassland, riparian, woodland mix along Bear Slough; some of grassland and woodland along Mokelumne has been leveled since 1973.
Sources: Cosumnes River Basin Resources Study identified as a critical natural resource conservation area; identified as a significant resource area in Delta Wildlife Protection Plan; Grissley Slough included as part of Cosumnes riparian corridor by Open Space Task Force.
5. Mokelumne River
Location: North bank between Franklin Boulevard and New Hope Landing.
Comments: Riparian vegetation on levee side of river.
Source: Identified as significant resource area in Delta Wildlife Protection and Restoration Plan.
6. Dry Creek
Location: North bank, Amador County line to point four miles east of Mokelumne confluence.
Comments: Riparian corridor occasionally widening to woodland areas.
Source: Identified as Dry Creek riparian corridor by Open Space Task Force.
7. Laguna Creek
Location: From one mile west at Clay Station Road at Hobday Road extension to confluence with Cosumnes River.
Comments: Intermittent stream with riparian habitat; two miles of riparian woodland with large trees; lower reaches include seasonal marsh along creek and tributaries.
Sources: Identified as Laguna Creek riparian corridor by Open Space Task Force. The western reach, upstream 1-1/2 miles from Cosumnes confluence is included within critical natural resource area identified by Cosumnes River Basin Resources Study.
### STONE LAKES/DELTA
1. Beach Lake/Morrison Creek\*
Location: Northern portion Regional Treatment Plan property between I-5 and Union Pacific Railroad.
Comments: Permanent and seasonal marsh in what used to be Beach Lake; riparian forest along Morrison Creek, essentially intact since 1937, dominated by cottonwood and willow; a riparian area abundantly rich in wildlife and plant communities.
Sources: The draft master plan for buffer lands designates the area as a natural area; Audubon Society area of critical concern; identified as open space for winter waterfowl by Open Space Task Force.
2. Lower Laguna Creek\*
Location: Between Franklin Boulevard and Union Pacific Railroad tracks on Regional Treatment Plant property.
Comments: Seasonal wetland, ponds and vernal pools with adjacent grassland; channel modifications in conjunction with upstream improvements along Laguna Creek.
Source: Draft Master Plan for buffer lands designates the area as a natural area.
3. North Stone Lake\*
Location: Morrison Creek levee on north, I-5 on east, Hood-Franklin Road on south and Southern Pacific Railroad on west.
Comments: Extremely high fish and wildlife values; old overflow basin with diversity of habitat; 464 acres emergent marsh 155 acres riparian, 170 acres water, 2,158 acres upland; supports excellent warm water fishery; high diversity of vegetation types makes area one of most unique and valuable in Sacramento Valley. Large rookery on southeast arm is largest in County; vital link in Pacific Highway; number one ranked site for new western national wildlife refuge.
Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report to Corps on Morrison Creek Project; Audubon Society area of critical concern; identified as significant resource in Delta Wildlife Protection and Restoration Plan; Open Space Task Force wildlife protection area.
4. South Stone Lake
Location: Hood-Franklin Road on north, I-5 on east, Lambert Road on south and Southern Pacific Railroad on west.
Comments: Includes 93 acres riparian, 446 acres marsh, 186 acres upland, 121 acres water; rest of 3,480 acres is agriculture; supports excellent warm water fishery; supplements North Stone Lake as important wildlife area; part of number one ranked site for new western National Wildlife Refuge; with North Stone Lake, is one of the most important ecological complexes in Delta.
Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report to Corps on Morrison Creek Project; designated significant resource on Delta Wildlife Protection and Restoration Plan; Open Space Task Force wildlife protection area.
5. Snodgrass Slough
Location: Length of slough, between Sacramento River and Delta Meadows.
Comments: Shrub brush and occasional riparian woodland along northernmost Delta slough in Sacramento.
Source: Significant resource in Delta Wildlife Protection and Restoration Plan.
6. Delta Meadows*
Location: Between Locke and Walnut Grove.
Comments: Significant prime natural resource area; remnant of valley oak woodland; in excess of 110 bird species, abounds with small mammals; state park acquisition project.
Source: Audubon Society area of critical concern.
7. Lost Slough
Location: Union Pacific Railroad tracks east to Sacramento River, just north of Delta Meadows.
Comments: Waterway and adjacent riparian habitat linking Lower Cosumnes and Delta Meadows, Snodgrass Slough and the Delta river system.
Source: Identified by Open Space Task Force as natural area to protect as open space.
8. Steamboat Slough
Location: Entire length.
Comments: Riparian shrub-brush and woodland at south end near Howard Landing and along north portion.
Source: Significant resource in Delta Wildlife Protection and Restoration Plan.
9. Grand Island Tip
Location: West end Grand Island at mouth of Steamboat Slough.
Comments: Mason's lilaeopsis, Delta tule pea, and Sacramento anthacid beetle found here; state designated significant natural area.
Sources: Fish and Game California Natural Areas Program; significant natural resource in Delta Wildlife Protection and Restoration Plan.
10. Georgiana Slough
Location: Walnut Grove to Isleton.
Comments: Shrub-brush and occasional woodland riparian along open slough.
Source: Identified as riparian open space corridor by Open Space Task Force.
11. Seven Mile Slough
Location: Brannan Island State Park east to San Joaquin River.
Comments: Riparian trees and shrub-brush along a little-used slough.
Sources: Significant natural area in Delta Wildlife Protection and Restoration Plan; designated natural area in Delta Master Recreation Plan.
12. Brannan Island\*
Location: South end Brannan Island at State Park.
Comments: Site of Antioch Dunes evening primrose, very rare plant; state designated significant nature area.
Source: Fish and Game California Natural Areas Program.
13. Mayberry Slough
Location: Southwest end of Sherman Island.
Comments: Deadend slough, isolated for wildlife habitat.
Source: Natural area recommendation of Open Space Task Force.
14. Southwest Tip of County
Location: Tip of Sherman Island.
Comments: Upland habitat; blue heron rookery; several rare and endangered species.
Sources: Delta Wildlife Protection and Restoration Plan; recommended natural area open space by Open Space Task Force.
15. Chain Island
Location: Westernmost point of County.
Comments: Isolated island, formerly diked with coastal brackish marsh habitat; Mason's ilaeopsis and Suisun marsh aster; state designated significant natural area.
Source: Fish and Game California Natural Area Program.
### EASTERN SACRAMENTO COUNTY
1. Upper Laguna Creek
Location: Upstream from Sheldon Road for one mile.
Comments: Dense stand of riparian vegetation listed as one of three most important sections on Laguna Creek (the other two are now urban creek sections).
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report to Army Corps on Morrison Creek Project.
2. Sloughhouse South
Location: Uncertain.
Comments: One of best sites of valley elderberry longhorn beetle habitat; state designated significant natural area.
Source: Fish and Game California Natural Areas Program.
3. Meiss-Ione Road Overlook
Location: Four miles southeast of Bridgehouse just south of Meiss Road and west of Ione Road.
Comments: Only lesser nighthawks in Sacramento County; vernal pools with unusual dwarf plant.
Sources: Audubon Society area of critical concern; natural area recommendation by Open Space Task Force.
4. Scott Road Raptor Area
Location: Between Cosumnes River, Latrobe Road and Grant Line Road; approximately 80 square miles including El Dorado County portion.
Comments: Open shortgrass prairie with sparse to dense valley and blue oak thickets, mostly in southern area; dense cottonwood-willow riparian vegetation along stream courses; habitat for one of largest concentrations of raptoral birds in Sacramento region; grand wildflower displays in spring.
Sources: Audubon Society area of critical concern; natural area open space recommendation by Open Space Task Force.
5. Sloughhouse Vernal Pools
Location: East and southeast side of Grant Line Road between one and six miles north of Highway 16.
Comments: Concentrations of vernal pools; very rare Sacramento orcutt grass found near County dump; state designated significant natural area.
Sources: Fish and Game California Natural Areas Program; Audubon Society area of critical concern.
6. Rancho Seco Lake\*
Location: one half mile south of Rancho Seco Lake.
Comments: About 500 plants of Sacramento orcutt grass; state designated significant natural area.
Source: Fish and Game California Natural Areas Program.
7. Jackson Highway Oak Woodland
Location: South of Jackson Highway between Ione Road and Amador County line.
Comments: None.
Source: Natural area recommendation of Open Space Task Force.
8. Twin Cities Road Oak Woodland
Location: Both sides Twin Cities Road and Amador County line.
Comments: None.
Source: Natural area recommendation of Open Space Task Force.
9. South Area Vernal Pools
Locations: The following descriptions generally define where the densest concentration of vernal pools occur in Sacramento County in addition to those sites identified above. The list is not all inclusive.
- North side Douglas Road one mile east of Sunrise
- East side Sunrise Boulevard north of Kiefer Road
- Lower 1/2 of triangle formed by Sunrise, Highway 16 and Grant LineRoads
- Both sides Meiss Road, three miles east of Dillard Road
- East side Clay Station Road south of Laguna Creek
- Both sides Riley Road between Arno and Salas Roads
- Between Clay Station Road/Laguna Creek and Alta Mesa Road one mile south of Tavernor and north of Salas Road extension
- Along three mile wide corridor flanking railroad tracks north of Twin Cities Road, extending from Southern Pacific RR tracks east to County line. Located in 50 to 300 acre groups of densely occurring vernal pools.
Comments: Quality of pools is unknown; may contain rare and endangered plants.
## NORTH SACRAMENTO
### 1. Garden Highway
Location: Sacramento River from Interstate-80 north to County line.
Comments: Greatest concentration of riparian woodland in Sacramento County along Sacramento River; riparian woodlands are seven times greater in extent than disturbed rip-rap areas to south; coexists with several homes; Swainson's hawk nests.
Source: Sacramento Marina Carrying Capacity Study.
### 2. Alder Creek
Location: Aerojet property paralleling U.S. Highway 50.
Comments: Excellent riparian area; diverse vegetation and wildlife; spillway and marsh; upstream ponds add diversity; good beaver and muskrat habitat.
Sources: Audubon Society area of critical concern; Open Space Task Force recommended natural area.
### 3. Fair Oaks Bald Spot*
Location: Phoenix Park in Fair Oaks.
Comments: Excellent examples of vernal pools with Sacramento orcutt grass; state designated significant natural area.
Sources: Fish and Game California Natural Areas Program; Audubon Society area of critical concern; Open Space Task Force recommended natural area.
4. Lake Natoma*
Location: East of Hazel Road on American River.
Comments: American River bluffs, 100[^ ]feet high, cut by several small canyons; rich foothill woodland plant community; some of most varied and dense floral displays in Sacramento County; cottonwood dredger tailing riparian at Negro Bar with jungle-like mixture of oak, buckeye, elderberry, et al on higher ground.
Source: Audubon Society area of critical concern.
5. East Main Drain*
Location: Northern city limits to Sutter County line.
Comments: Waterfowl habitat; year round habitat; much disturbance, dumping.
Source: Open Space Task Force recommended wildlife habitat and natural area.
6. Dry Creek*
Location: Sutter County line south to Rio Linda Community Park, including both channels and Cherry Island in between.
Comments: Dual channel with grassland/farming in between creates good wildlife habitat. Good riparian cover along creek channels.
Source: Additional areas recommends for purchase by County Parks using Proposition 70[^ ]funds designated for purchase of riparian corridors.
7. American River Parkway*
Location: Hazel Avenue west to Sacramento River.
Comments: Mix of riparian, freshwater marsh, oak woodland, grassland, inhabited by great variety of plant and wildlife species.
Source: American River Parkway Plan.
(blank page)
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
## D. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES BACKGROUND REPORT
### 4. RESPONSIBILITIES AND CURRENT EFFORTS
Most levels of government, as well as in the private sector, play an active role in protecting vegetation, wildlife, and natural areas. The following summarizes key responsibilities and current efforts.
#### U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wetlands Regulation. The primary federal regulation protecting wetlands is Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including most wetlands. Section 404 is administered jointly by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have advisory and commenting roles in the 404 process.
The COE has jurisdiction over waters of the United States. Such waters are referred to as jurisdictional wetlands and are defined as those areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. To be regulated by the COE wetlands must meet a three-parameter test by having 1) a predominance of plants determined to be "obligate wetland," "facultative wetland," or "facultative" species; 2) indicators of wetland hydrological conditions, such as inundation, saturation, drift lines, watermarks, sediment deposits, or drainage patterns in topographically low sites; and 3) indicators of hydric soil conditions, such as highly organic surface layers, hydrogen sulfide emissions, shallow groundwater, reducing soil chemistry, gray soil colors, bright mottles in a dark matrix, and iron-manganese concretions.
Obligate wetland plants are species "that occur almost always (estimated probability greater than 99 percent) in wetlands under natural conditions." Facultative wetland plants are species "that occur usually (estimated probability 67-99 percent) in wetlands." Facultative plants are species "with a similar likelihood (estimated probability 33-67 percent) occurring in both wetlands and nonwetlands."
Section 404(b)(1), a subsection, requires that practicable alternatives be considered before a permit can be issued to discharge dredged or fill material into wetlands. Practicable alternatives are presumed to exist for uses that are not water dependent. The COE applies the (b)(1) guidelines and its own public interest review to individual permit applications. Public interest review includes considering aesthetics, conservation, economics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, flood hazards, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. Economic hardship is considered a valid reason for permit issuance.
Local governments can participate in the COE permitting process through the notice and comment procedures for permit applications. They can monitor activities in wetland areas and report unauthorized filling or dredging. The COE prefers to conduct evaluations of permit requests simultaneously with local permit review, whenever possible. If local permits are denied within 30 days of the issuance of a public notice, the COE will usually deny the requested Section 404 permit.
Certain activities are specifically exempt from 404 regulations. Exemptions include normal farming, silvaculture, and ranching activities; the construction or maintenance of farm or stockponds, or irrigation ditches; and the construction of farm or forest roads. These exemptions are subject to the so-called "recapture" provision that negates the exemption for the activities listed if the purpose of the activity is to bring an area of navigable waters into a new use--one that either impairs the flow of waters or reduces their extent. To facilitate the regulatory process governing wetlands of relatively small size, ten acres or less, the COE will issue a Nationwide General Permit, referred to as Nationwide 26, to an applicant seeking to fill up to ten acres of wetland under a single development proposal. The issuance of a Nationwide permit for filling one to ten acres typically allows mitigation which results in a net loss of wetland. For wetland loss under one acre the Corps will issue the permit and may require no mitigation.
Streambank Protection. Ironically, while the COE is charged with protecting wetlands, its traditional responsibility is flood control which has led to the loss of thousands of acres of natural habitat. In Sacramento, their efforts concern levee protection and stabilization along the Sacramento River.
Since 1960, Congress has authorized a total of 158 miles of bank protection under the first two phases of the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project. About 138 miles of this work have been completed and about 20 more miles are scheduled for completion by 1991. After 1991, the third phase of the project, covering a substantial additional length of riverbanks, will likely be initiated. Usually, from one to three construction contracts are issued each year. Each contract generally comprises 10 to 25 individual sites which total at least several miles in length.
As each new levee contract is completed, a substantial part of the river's remaining riparian cover is permanently removed. In the past, the COE has offered replacement mitigation. Presently,
replacement efforts by the Corps are limited to, at best, a few hundred linear feet annually of experimental mitigation measures. The experimental measures are designed primarily for replacing the habitat values for juvenile salmon. Specific replacement for other fish and wildlife is secondary.
## OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and Wildlife Service manages the National Wildlife refuge system, operates or participates in several wildlife habitat preservation programs, undertakes wildlife studies in conjunction with environmental analysis of federal projects, oversees the Endangered Species Act, and advises the COE on 404 permit applications. The Service operates under a no net wetlands loss policy with regard to its recommendations to the Corps of Engineers and involvement in federal projects
The Service has approved the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge for Sacramento County. However, due to funding constraints and some property owner opposition refuge establishment has been delayed. Fish and Wildlife staff plan to begin restoration of some sections of the project area within the coming months. The project include Beach Lake Preserve, the Regional Sanitation buffer lands, and North and South Stone Lakes.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The purpose of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) is to develop and implement individual soil conservation plans with participating landowners. The SCS also assists local Resource Conservation Districts to develop long-term soil and water conservation programs. The SCS is the only agency that inventories, assesses, and monitors soil resources on a significant scale.
The SCS carries out federal policy on agricultural conversion of wetlands under the 1985 Food Security Act. The act included the "swampbuster" provision that denies all federal farm benefits, mortgages, commodity support, and crop disaster loans to farmers or other persons converting wetlands to dry cropland after December 1985. The SCS identifies and maps all wetlands on property for which landowners submit applications for federal benefits. In Sacramento County, wetlands covered by the Swampbuster provision are located primarily in the lower Cosumnes and the Delta and do not constitute a significant percentage of the wetlands acreage.
Other Federal Agencies. The Bureau of Land Management owns property in the Consumnes River area and is a cooperator within the Nature Conservancy's Consumnes River Preserve. There are no Forest Service holdings in the County. Department of Defense property at Mather Air Force Base includes a 67-acre wetlands area known as Mather Lake as well as several vernal pool complexes. The County Parks Department is proposing that the wetlands area be part of a regional park when Mather closes. The Bureau of Reclamation owns land around Lake Natomas comprising bluffs, oak woodland, grassland, and some wetlands which are managed by the state as part of Folsom State Park.
STATE AGENCIES
Department of Fish and Game. As California's principal agency protecting wildlife, Fish and Game operates programs to protect rare and endangered species, preserve valuable wildlife habitat and manage wildlife resources on public lands. The Department operates the hunting licensing program and employs wardens throughout the state to enforce hunting laws and minimize wildlife depredation. The Department also licenses several pheasant hunting clubs in Sacramento.
Fish and Game also issues streambed alteration permits which are required of any person or agency undertaking any work within the mean high-water mark of any body of water containing fish or wildlife resources or where the project sponsor will use material from the streambed. The permit imposes such conditions as necessary to protect the fish and wildlife resources or where the project sponsor will use material from the streambed. The permit imposes such conditions as necessary to protect the fish and wildlife resources of the site. Permits involving development projects are usually processed after local approval.
In addition to its regulatory responsibilities, Fish and Game reviews and recommends modification, approval, or denial of projects requiring a County permit that may affect wildlife.
Department of Water Resources. Water Resources is currently purchasing most of Twitchell Island and some of Sherman Island. Although habitat restoration plans are complete, there is no schedule yet for implementation. Current efforts are replacing row crops for pasture land to minimize tillage which aggrevates soil oxidation. The pastures will provide some wildlife foraging opportunities.
Department of Parks and Recreation. The state parks system includes Folsom Lake, Delta Meadows, and Brannan Island with natural habitat lands. The Department does not anticipate additional recreation development which would encroach upon natural areas.
LOCAL AGENCIES
Sacramento County Parks and Recreation Department. The American River Parkway is the jewel of the County's park system, and recognized nationally as an outstanding example of a local effort to protect a major riparian environment throughout its length. The Parkway receives heavy recreational demand which must be balanced with wildlife protection imperatives. The Department is guided in its management and development of the Parkway by the American River Parkway Plan, an element of the County General Plan. The Plan establishes 80 percent of the Parkway as a natural area.
Outside of the American River, the Department has focused primarily on providing regional recreation facilities. Gibson Ranch Park includes riparian woodland on both sides of Dry Creek. A draft Dry Creek Master Plan has been released which includes a linear trail following the
creek. In the south County the Department has begun development of a multicultural park. A Master Plan for this site, which has over 70 vernal pools, has also been released.
The Parks Department recognizes the need for its more active role in natural area acquisition and management. The Parks 2000 Plan establishes that "provision of a sufficient quantity of high quality conservation oriented regional open space shall be a major mission of the department."
Sacramento County Department of Environmental Review and Assessment (DERA). All projects to which CEQA applies are reviewed by DERA for possible impacts on vegetation and wildlife. Projects where aerial photos and field inspections by DERA staff indicate probable wetlands are surveyed by a professional botanist for the presence of rare and endangered plants. The Environmental Coordinator determines if the project will have significant affect on vegetation and wildlife resources and recommends appropriate mitigation measures.
Public Works Tree Coordinator. The Tree Coordinator, a position with the County Department of Public Works, is responsible for administration of the Tree Preservation Ordinance and all tree mitigation measures incorporated as conditions to discretionary projects. The ordinance protects all oak trees unless they are specifically designated for removal as part of an approved project. When oaks are removed they must be replaced with the same tree species equaling in sum the diameter of the tree lost. Any person may pay a fee of $60.00 per inch diameter to remove oaks when their replacement is not possible due to site constraints. The Tree Preservation Ordinance applies only to the designated urban area, except for projects that require a discretionary land use entitlement, such as a parcel map.
The Tree Coordinator advises DERA staff in developing recommended native oak tree mitigation measures. Other responsibilities include reviewing improvement plans and building permits and ensureing that project proponents comply with required conditions of approval.
The Coordinator has the authority to issue "stop work orders" on projects in violation of required mitigation measures. In extreme cases, where project implementation results in the willful destruction of native oaks, again in violation of required mitigation, the Coordinator can recommend the revocation of the project's land use entitlement by referring the project proponent back to the original hearing body.
Regional Sanitation District. The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District manage a 2,650-acre buffer area surrounding its regional treatment plant near Freeport. The buffer lands include 556 acres of wetlands, riparian forest, willow scrub and vernal pools and an additional 896 acres of grassland. The District has completed a draft Master Plan for the buffer lands which identifies natural areas for protection and restoration.
A supplement to the plan notes the buffer lands' potential to be part of a new federal wildlife refuge. The supplement also explains increasing interest by local developers and environmental organizations in managing buffer lands as a mitigation bank site for wetlands. The District will
not undertake new long-term leases or other land use commitments until the status of the refuge and its future management become clear.
Private Organizations. The Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited are both private, nonprofit agencies dedicated to preserving natural habitat nationwide. Nature Conservancy's mission is to preserve the full array of biological diversity by finding, protecting, and preserving the best examples of ecosystems, communities, and important species in the natural world. Ducks Unlimited seeks to conserve wetland habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. They also use satellite imagery and computers to evaluate, inventory, and map wetlands important to migratory waterfowl.
In Sacramento, the Nature Conservancy owns and jointly manages the 5,000 acre Cosumnes River Preserve with Ducks Unlimited, the Bureau of Land Management, State Fish and Game, and County Parks. This joint effort, one of several nationally significant projects undertaken by the Nature Conservancy, will protect a prime habitat for California's migrating waterfowl. As part of the overall project the Nature Conservancy will restore riparian forest and wetland on what is currently levelled agricultural land. The revegetation project will be conducted with controlled scientific experiments. The two conservation agencies are currently negotiating additional purchases in the lower Cosumnes River. The Nature Conservancy is also evaluating the natural values of the South County east of Highway 99 to determine if additional projects in Sacramento merit consideration.
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
# CONSERVATION ELEMENT
## E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
### INTRODUCTION
Sacramento County is fortunate to have a rich and varied collection of historic and prehistoric features which serve as a record of significant, as well as routine, events in the County's long history of human habitation. Exemplary archaeological sites of Nisenan-Maidu and Plains Miwok Indians have been identified along river terraces. Their locations are fiercely protected by researchers who feel, without protection, the sites would be disturbed if the locations were disclosed. The history of more recent settlers in the County is seen at the Historic sites and structures of explorers and settlers who came to trap, mine, and farm. The area's wealth in fur, gold, and soil drew settlers of diverse ethnicities and cultures including, Asians, Hispanics, African Americans, and Europeans whose cultural imprint can be found throughout County neighborhoods.
### THE RESOURCE
The evidence left by prehistoric ancestors in what is now the vicinity of Sacramento County is often difficult to detect. Most artifacts of prehistoric peoples were made of natural materials, stone, fur, sticks, grasses, and mud which rapidly return to the earth. However, due to the length of habitation and the abundance of food Sacramento County has a rich array of important archaeologic sites where many artifacts have been recovered. An array of hand implements, middens rich in discarded objects, isolated field houses, and mud, stick, and stone structural remains of entire villages comprise some of the County's cultural resource heritage. Trained and locally experienced archaeologists decipher the relationship these artifacts have to one another in hopes of understanding, among other things, food gathering practices, societal structuring, and trading networks.
Archeologic sites are especially important to Native American Indians as such sites represent a significant part of their ancestral heritage. Consultation with Native American Indians has proven valuable in helping to discover, protect, and interpret many County archaeological sites.
More recent historical sites involve settlers from Europe, Asia, Spanish holdings in South America, and other areas of the world. Comparatively fewer historic sites remain due to continual changes to the area caused by successional use. In addition, Sacramento County is the center of many interesting and important events which are historically significant, including the Gold Rush, the development of railroads, the seat of State Government, and as a major shipping
port for the Central Valley's products. A variety of sites and artifacts have been preserved representing a wide array of cultural and historical events that have occurred in the County. Among the most prominent are Old Town Sacramento, the Capitol, Sutter's Fort, City of Folsom, and many structures with cultural, historical, or architectural significance.
### LOCATION
Both historic and prehistoric sites tend to be scattered throughout the County, although both can potentially be found in greater concentration along waterways. Areas that are likely or extremely likely to contain prehistoric sites include the Cosumnes River area, the American River area, and the Delta and Sacramento River areas (Figure 12).
Historic sites tend to be concentrated in areas still inhabited such as the City of Sacramento, City of Folsom, the Delta, along old travel routes like the Jackson Highway, Central California Traction Railroad, and Southern Pacific Railroad routes and along river and stream beds.
### ISSUES FACING CULTURAL RESOURCES
It is important to define, protect, and preserve our cultural resources for future generations and to provide continuity between past and present. There are four general areas where cultural resources face problems. These are: 1) Lack of systematic methods for locating, reporting, and recording sites or storing excavated cultural artifacts, 2) Numerous agencies and interest groups are, at times, seemingly unable to reach a consensus on "significant" site definition or appropriate mitigation measures, 3) Lack of adequate protection through either public or private ownership leads to site disruption from illegal collecting, vandalism, or uninformed usage, 4) Lack of funding for protection and preservation. Each of these issues are discussed below.
1. ### LACK OF SYSTEMATIC METHODS FOR HANDLING CULTURAL RESOURCES
The possibilities for losing cultural resources are very high because no systematic plan for future exploration for new sites has been implemented. In addition thorough and uniform reporting methods and catalog and storage procedures have yet to be established. Resource losses occur through degradation from weathering, incompatible land uses, and removal of artifacts by collectors. Once archaeologic or historic sites are destroyed, there is no way to restore their scientific value. If the site was unknown to archaeologists and historians before its destruction, the link with the past is completely lost.
Previously located and excavated archaeologic sites are largely undocumented because many earlier archaeological surveys provided inexact locations of excavations. In addition, early pioneers and mission priests who recorded significant events mention the names of Native American Indian villages, but locations were not specifically described. As a result, information contained in early documentation of some of Sacramento's 400 sites is questionable.
<>
MODERATE SENSITIVITY
PREHISTORIC
AREAS THAT INCLUDE HIGH SENSITIVITY
PREHISTORIC
### Figure 12
## Cultural Resources Sensitivity
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
Currently, the California Archaeological Inventory (CAI) acts as the major clearinghouse for archaeologic and historic information. CAI compiles all site information onto U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute topographic maps and maintains pertinent data using personal computers. The County Department of Environmental Review and Assessment (DERA) staff uses these maps to refer projects planned in culturally sensitive areas to CAI for data review and possible field and site survey recommendations. The maps and data base represent a guide only, not a comprehensive inventory, unmapped sites can only be located through field investigations. If the CAI's review finds positive site location DERA, will field check the area for archaeological features. The State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) does some review also, but only for federally funded projects.
Records on local resources are also kept by several other agencies. The California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) catalogs traditional and sacred lands used by California Indians in prehistoric and historic times. The Sacramento Museum and History Division collects and catalogs historical records and photographs of local significance and surveys historic buildings. Lastly, the Office of Historic Preservation conducts surveys of historic properties and nominates cultural sites to the National Register of Historic Places and to the State Registry.
### Storage of Artifacts
Existing facilities for artifact storage are insufficient. Neither California State University at Sacramento (CSUS), University of California at Davis (UCD), or the State Indian Museum are accepting new artifacts for their collections. Therefore, new materials collected for scientific research are stored uncataloged in basements and garages of archaeologists, where artifacts are unavailable to other researchers and subject to potential damage in an uncontrolled environment. Moreover, the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with continuing urban expansion in archaeologically sensitive areas is yielding an ever-increasing inventory of excavated materials.
Limited storage facilities for historical artifacts have led to similar problems. The Sacramento History Museum and other sites like the Governor's Mansion and Sutter's Fort have only limited storage, catalog, and display space. Some historical artifacts are extremely fragile such as photos, diaries, other written materials, and textiles. Without proper preservation, many such items deteriorate rapidly and so become lost for future reference and appreciation.
### 2. LACK OF CONSENSUS AND COORDINATION AMONG NUMEROUS AGENCIES AND INTEREST GROUPS
There are a total of ten different public agencies and interest groups involved with preserving historic resources (see Table 17), not including the many consultants who conduct archaeologic and historic research, surveys, and excavations. These groups often have different preservation strategies and priorities. While formal coordination between
some groups--County ERA and CAI--is good, most rely on informal communication. No central agency monitors all the various programs and activities.
### TABLE 17
### AGENCIES AND INTEREST GROUPS
| AGENCY | TYPE | FUNCTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) | State | Nominates cultural sites to the National Register of Historic Places and State Register. Has prepared and implemented a comprehensive Statewide Preservation Plan. Reviews Federally funded projects only. |
| California Native American Heritage | Interest Group | Catalogs traditional and sacred land uses of California Indians. Have the authority through the State Attorney General to identify and preserve access to State lands which are religiously or socially significant to Native Americans. Reviews and comments on Environmental Impact Reports which affect property in the sacred lands inventory. If Native American Indian burial remains are found, the NAHC acts as a liaison between descendents and the developer. |
| California Archaeology Inventory (CAI) | State | Associated with California State University, Sacramento and is the major clearinghouse for sites of cultural significance in Sacramento and five surrounding counties. CAI compiles all archaeologic and historic site information onto U.S.G.S. 7-1/2 minute topographic maps and personal computers. Conducts literature review of federal, state, local, or private development projects and forwards findings and recommendations to the County’s Environmental Review and Assessment Section. |
| California State University, Sacramento (CSUS) | State | Trains students in archaeologic theory and conducts research projects in Northern California. Only entity In County training students in site excavation methods. |
### TABLE 17 (Cont.)
### AGENCIES AND INTEREST GROUPS
| AGENCY | TYPE | FUNCTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Environmental Review and Assessment (ERA) | County | Conducts initial environmental studies and prepared negative declarations, EIR's, and suggestions for mitigation. All projects determined to be near or in areas of significant probability for sites are sent to CAI for further review. Often, further review and partial or complete site surveys are required. |
| Parks and Recreation | County | Manages the countywide parks system. An Archaeologic Inventory Plan was prepared in 1978 focusing on American River Parkway sites suggesting preservation methods. It is possible that a future park may focus entirely on Native American heritage. |
| Sacramento Museum and History Division | City | Sacramento City Department of Parks and Community Services manages the Sacramento History Center in Old Sacramento, collects and catalogs historical records and photos, reviews historic values of buildings countywide, and educates the public on Sacramento history. |
| Archaeological Conservancy | Private | Based in Santa Fe, New Mexico, this organization acquires archaeological sites to protect them from development. Criteria used for selecting the sites: 1) sites must be undisturbed and intact, 2) site is distinct and exhibits rare cultural attributes, and 3) the site has the potential to contribute significantly to prehistorical research. The Conservancy either manages its own parcels or sells the parcels to a public agency if the agency has enough personnel to effectively manage sites. |
### TABLE 17 (Cont.)
### AGENCIES AND INTEREST GROUPS
| AGENCY | TYPE | FUNCTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Central California Foundation (CCAF) and the Society for California Archaeology | Private | Professional organizations that seek to Archaeologic inform the general public and public the agencies on importance of preserving archaeological areas through education, lobbying and legislation. Provide scholarships to students of anthropology/archaeology. |
| Federal Agencies | | All Federal agencies must identify properties under their jurisdiction, consider historic properties when actions affect them, and document historic properties that cannot be preserved from development under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Mather McClellan Air Force Bases are the largest federal land managers in the County. Mather has no identified historic or prehistoric sites but McClellan has a historic site of approximately 30 structures which is under review. |
An accessible network linking scientific knowledge and preservation strategies is lacking. Professional societies with annual meetings and periodic publications do offer a forum in which issues are addressed and ideas exchanged; however, there seems to be limited communication and coordination among local groups which hinders exchange and cooperation. Limited coordination among agencies and interest groups may also hinder surveying efforts and curtail cataloging and storage expansion efforts.
Professional opinion varies concerning what constitutes a significant site, and there is often disagreement of appropriate mitigation measures. Issues like whether sites should be left in tact, as is preferred by Native American Indians, in the case of sacred or burial grounds, or whether removal of artifacts is more appropriate, have several answers depending on who is asked and what criteria is used to guide decisions.
### 3. LACK OF ADEQUATE PROTECTION FOR SIGNIFICANT SITES
Both publicly and privately held sites face disruption, damage, and destruction from illegal collecting or improper or uniformed use.
Site locations are often kept secret to prevent artifact collectors and others from damaging sites. However, keeping site locations secret can inadvertently lead to destruction by people who are uniformed. Even planners do not always have ready access to the location data, making it difficult to utilize the cultural resources data based when approving development applications or updating community plans.
It is imperative to the science of archaeology that sites, yet to be studied remain untouched. Archaeology attempts to understand and interpret human behavior through reconstruction of events. Damage, destruction and removal of artifacts from sites diminishes scientific values by eliminating figures in the interpretation equation.
Public ownership does not necessarily guarantee protection of cultural resources. Public ownership may entail roads and trails to access sites, potentially increasing opportunities for vandalism. Nevertheless, federal, state, local governments, as well as private organizations have, in many cases, successfully preserved sites by purchasing culturally important areas for parks and open space. Private ownership can sometimes offer better protection of cultural resources primarily because of restricted public access. Some private landowners have a strong appreciation of and/or desire to protect cultural resources in such cases the site may be better preserved and protected in private rather than public trust.
However, limiting public access to sites can lead to a decrease in public interest in preservation efforts since the sites can't be publicly enjoyed. This could be especially important when trying to develop public support for funding cultural resources preservation.
4. LACK OF FUNDING
Lack of funding for protection and preservation has magnified many of the problems and issues surrounding cultural resources. Proper funding can help to ease some of these problems by providing the means to secure significant sites, develop Countywide plans for coordinating archaeological efforts, and possibly locate new storage and display areas.
Part of the attractiveness of Sacramento County comes from its rich historic past. The Chamber of Commerce promotes history. As a result, Sacramento profits from tourism, conventions, and new businesses. Yet, the County's financial support falls short of the amount needed for wise protection and management of cultural resources.
CONCLUSION
Preserving and stabilizing remnants of our past require we address problems leading to the rapid deterioration of our cultural resources. The lack of systematic methods for handling cultural resources, lack of consensus and coordination among agencies and interest groups, lack of protection for privately and publicly owned sites, and lack of funding should receive a greater commitment from the County. As unprecedented urbanization and population growth expands into the Twenty-first Century, the need to protect and preserve these resources so future residents will have the opportunity to learn and appreciate the important contributions of past inhabitants increases the urgency of the situation.
---
## Open Space — Open Space
- Source: https://landuse.saccounty.gov/archive/GPPD/GP_BackgroundReport_OS.pdf
- Pages: 18
- Covers: open_space
# General Plan
# Open Space Element
**BACKGROUND TO THE
1993 GENERAL PLAN AS AMENDED**
The background section text and maps were not updated as part of the
2011 amendments to the County General Plan.
**County of Sacramento**
Community Planning and Development Department
(blank page)
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
# OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
## OPEN SPACE RESOURCES
## BACKGROUND REPORT
Sacramento County open space resources are comprised of natural areas and lands set aside primarily for human use. Natural area open spaces are riparian habitat, seasonal and permanent marshes, vernal pool concentrations, oak woodlands, flood zones, and the open waters of the rivers and Delta. Open spaces used primarily for human use are agricultural lands, recreation oriented parklands, existing and proposed buffer lands, aquifer recharge areas, and areas zoned for mineral and aggregate extraction. There is overlap and combining of natural and human use attributes on many of the open space areas. For instance, the best aquifer recharge areas are often prime agriculture lands, and oak woodlands are found scattered amongst grazing areas.
County open space area maps are used for illustrative purposes in the General Plan document. [Note that scale limitations require the generalization of these diagrams. Therefore, the complete extent of the planning factors depicted may not be fully represented, and in some cases may be overstated.] Maps were compiled using various sources including cartographic, photographic, natural resource, and land use databases. Sources were county, state, and federal maps, communication with professional resource managers and land use planners, and computerized land database information from academic institutions and public, private, and nonprofit agencies. Maps were compiled by County cartographic staff using a Mackintosh II computer and appropriate software.
The open space related maps represent the various categories of open space found in Sacramento County and delineate areas based on natural attributes or human uses. Listed below are the individual map titles, a brief explanation of the map, compilation procedures and, if applicable, a notation as to where maps are included with associated background reports. Maps follow text.
### EXISTING OPEN SPACE MAP
Open Space Map. Map shows existing open space areas, as opposed to urban areas, in Sacramento County. The open space map serves as an illustrative representation of acreage used and maintained in such a way that preserves, either purposefully or inadvertently, open space values. The map was compiled from review of the California Department of Conservation's Important Farmlands Map and the County's map of recreation oriented areas. The state's farmland map has a ten-acre threshold, and thus parcels that size or smaller were not mapped.
OPEN SPACE RESOURCE MAPSImportant Natural Areas Map. Map delineates areas considered primarily natural such as riparian zones, marshlands, and oak woodlands. Boundaries drawn based on review of reports and maps of public and private agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory maps, the State Department of Water Resource's Delta Atlas, the California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Database, and aerial photography.
Flood Areas Map. Map delineates 100-year floodplain and categorizes flood areas based on flood protection attributes and levee elevations. Cartographic data compiled from 1989 Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The delineation of different types of flooding is approximate and illustrative.
Prime Agricultural Lands Map. Map shows prime, statewide in importance, and unique farmland areas, as defined by the State of California and the U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. Data compiled from the State of California, Department of Conservation's 1990 working draft of Sacramento County's Important Farmlands Map. Approximate acreage of area: 216,829.
Williamson Contracts Maps. Map shows existing lands under Williamson Act provisions. Information compiled from review of current (1990) County Agriculture Preserve Map.
Recreation Oriented Parklands (in production). Cartographic information delineates existing parkland facilities. Map data obtained from communication with County Parks personnel and from review of County maps.
Existing and Planned Buffer Lands Map. Information regarding airport noise buffer zones, public utility buffer lands, and propellant hazard buffer zone are cartographically displayed on this map. Buffer zones were compiled from communication with and maps supplied by professionals at respective commercial airports and military bases, public utilities, and Aerojet.
Groundwater Recharge Area Map. Maps effective groundwater recharge areas based on permeability characteristics of underlying geologic formations. Cartographic information compiled from geologic interpretation of maps and data published in, Evaluation of Groundwater Resources: Sacramento County, D.L. Dupras, Bulletin No. 118-3, State of California, Department of Water Resources, July 1974.
Mineral Resources Map. Delineates known economically significant mineral and gas deposits, as well as potential aggregate and clay deposits. Cartographic data, except clay and gas deposits, compiled from interpretation and review of maps and text published as, Mineral Land Classification: Portland Cement Grade Aggregate in the Sacramento-Fairfield Production-Consumption Region, Special Report 156, State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, 1985. Clay deposit data within the Ione Formation compiled from review of Aerial Geology Map of Sacramento County, published as Plate 1 in, Evaluation of Groundwater Resources: Sacramento County, D.L. Dupras, Bulletin No. 118-3, State of California, Department of Water Resources, July 1974. Gas deposits identified through communication with resource professionals with the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas.
Aggregate and Clay Resources Map. Boundaries show significant aggregate and potentially significant clay deposits. Deposits mapped from review of maps and text published in, Evaluation of Groundwater Resources: Sacramento County, D.L. Dupras, Bulletin No. 118-3, State of California, Department of Water Resources, July 1974. Remaining open space with the aggregate resources are mapped from review of American River Parkway Plan map and communication with County planning and surveying staff.
Vernal Pool Concentration Map. Map shows areas containing high concentrations of vernal pools as determined through interpretation of color infrared aerial photography. Much of the County was not included in this analysis. Areas delineated are approximate and reflect only those included in the Jones and Stokes report of June, 1990.
Wildlife Corridors Map. Map shows both riparian and other aquatic corridors, as well as oak woodland and grassland corridors. These were determined in consultation with professional resource ecologists.
### COMPOSITE OPEN SPACE RESOURCES MAP
Composite Open Space Resource Map. This map is a schematic representation of all open space areas, both natural and human use, currently existing within the County. The map is a compilation of all open space areas identified in the Conservation and Open Space Elements, most of which are mapped individually for illustrative purposes. Due to scale and complexity of combined uses, boundaries are generalized.
# FIGURE 2
# OPEN SPACE
<>
## OPEN SPACE
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
# FIGURE 3
# IMPORTANT NATURAL AREAS
<>
### Figure 3
### Important Natural Areas
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
### FIGURE 4
### FLOOD AREAS
<>
| FLOOD AREA MAP KEY |
| :--- |
| **TYPE OF FLOODING** $\vec{\star}$ |
| [Symbol: Dotted Pattern] Streambank Overflow-Effective flow area during 100 year flood conditions |
| [Symbol: Horizontal Line Pattern] Low lying backwater areas where drainage into the Sacramento River is severely hampered |
| [Symbol: Dark Shaded Pattern] Delta Islands with inadequate levee protection for 100 year flood |
| [Symbol: White/Empty Box] Floodplain fringe backwater areas |
| [Symbol: Diagonal Line Pattern] Additional areas, previously protected by levees, which are threatened by 100 year flood based on reanalysis of 100 year flood event reflected on revised 1989 FEMA maps |
$\vec{\star}$ Boundaries between different types of flooding are approximations. Not based on tecnical analysis. Use for illustrative purposes only.
\* Flood information for the Cities of Sacramento, Folsom, Galt and Isleton is not included.
# FLOOD AREAS
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
### FIGURE 5
# PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS
<>
# Prime Agricultural Lands
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
# FIGURE 6
# WILLIAMSON CONTRACTS
<>
## Williamson Contracts
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
# FIGURE 7
# EXISTING PUBLIC PARKS & RECREATION SITES
<>
# Existing Public Parks & Recreation Sites
### Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
# FIGURE 8
# EXISTING AND PLANNED BUFFER LANDS
<>
# Existing and Planned Buffer Lands
# FIGURE 9
# GROUNDWATER RECHARGE CAPABILITY
<>
# Groundwater Recharge Capability
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
# FIGURE 10
# MINERAL RESOURCES
<>
# Mineral Resources
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
# FIGURE 11
# AGGREGATE AND CLAY RESOURCES
<>
# Aggregate and Clay Resources
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
# FIGURE 12
# VERNAL POOL CONCENTRATIONS
<>
## Vernal Pool Concentrations
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
# FIGURE 13
# WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
<>
# Wildlife Corridors
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
# FIGURE 14
# COMPOSITE OPEN SPACE RESOURCE DIAGRAM
<>
### Figure 14
## Composite Open Space Resource Diagram
Prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department
---
## Noise — Noise
- Source: https://landuse.saccounty.gov/archive/GPPD/GP_BackgroundReport_NO.pdf
- Pages: 37
- Covers: noise
# General Plan
# Noise Element
### BACKGROUND TO THE
### 1993 GENERAL PLAN AS AMENDED
Significant portions of this background document have been revised through the November 9, 2011 General Plan amendment process to reflect more current conditions. Other background information has been retained from the June 24, 1998 amendment.
### County of Sacramento
### Community Planning and Development Department
### Sacramento County General Plan
### Noise Element Background
### Appendix A
### Existing and Future Noise Environments Report
#### Table of Contents
Introduction.......................................................................................................................................1
Roadway Noise Sources ...................................................................................................................1
Railroad Noise Sources.....................................................................................................................7
Non-Transportation Noise Sources..................................................................................................10
Community Noise Survey................................................................................................................15
Aircraft Noise Sources....................................................................................................................22
(blank page)
# INTRODUCTION
This section discusses the existing and projected future noise environment in Sacramento County. The Sacramento County limits and General Plan Noise Element study area are shown by Figure 1. The major noise sources in Sacramento County consist of highway and local traffic on County streets, railroad, aircraft, commercial and industrial uses, active recreation areas of parks, outdoor play areas of schools. These noise sources are discussed individually below.
# ROADWAYS
## Highways
The Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with the Calveno vehicle noise emission curves was used to predict existing traffic noise levels within the Sacramento County Limits. The FHWA Model is the traffic noise prediction model currently preferred by the Federal Highway Administration, the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and most County and county governments, for use in traffic noise assessment. Although the FHWA Model is in the process of being updated by a more sophisticated traffic noise prediction model, the use of RD-77-108 is still considered acceptable for the development of General Plan traffic noise predictions.
Table 1 shows existing traffic volumes for the major highways located within Sacramento County. It also contains FHWA Model input data pertaining to truck usage based on Caltrans traffic counts, and the computed distances to the generalized existing 60 and 65 dB Ldn traffic noise contours. It is recognized that vehicle speeds vary on the Highways in Sacramento County, and the modeling effort attempted to account for such variation. The contour distances should also be considered conservative in that they do not account for local topographic shielding.
Future traffic forecasts for the County Highways were unavailable at the time this background report was prepared. Table 2 can be utilized to predict changes in distance to the reported noise contours based on the percentage increase in traffic volume (ADT). The Table 2 data assume that vehicle speeds, day/night distribution, and truck percentages would remain constant.
### Figure 1
### Sacramento County Noise Element Update
### Sacramento, California
<>
### Table 1
### FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model Data Inputs and Distances to 60 and 65 dB Ldn Contours
### Sacramento County Element - Existing (2006) Conditions
| | | | | | Truck % | | | Distance to Contours, feet |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Highway | Location | ADT | Day % | Night % | Med. | Hvy. | Speed | 60 dB Ldn | 65 dB Ldn |
| Interstate 5 | Twin Cities Rd. to Hood-Franklin Rd. | 58000 | 80 | 20 | 6 | 19 | 70 | 1971 | 915 |
| | Hood-Franklin Rd. to Elk Grove Blvd. | 64000 | 80 | 20 | 3 | 10 | 70 | 1706 | 792 |
| | Elk Grove Blvd. to Laguna Blvd. | 74000 | 80 | 20 | 3 | 10 | 65 | 1712 | 795 |
| | Laguna Blvd. to Pocket/Meadowview | 99000 | 80 | 20 | 3 | 10 | 65 | 2079 | 965 |
| | JCT. RTE. 99 North to Airport Blvd. | 79000 | 80 | 20 | 4 | 10 | 65 | 1777 | 825 |
| | North of Airport Blvd. | 53000 | 80 | 20 | 4 | 10 | 65 | 1362 | 632 |
| Interstate 80 | Watt Ave. to Madison Ave. | 136000 | 80 | 20 | 2 | 3 | 65 | 2003 | 930 |
| | Madison Ave. to Greenback Ln. | 207000 | 80 | 20 | 2 | 3 | 65 | 2651 | 1230 |
| Highway 16 | Watt Ave. to Bradshaw Rd. | 16000 | 80 | 20 | 3 | 6 | 65 | 544 | 253 |
| | Bradshaw Rd. to Excelsior Rd. | 13400 | 80 | 20 | 3 | 6 | 65 | 483 | 224 |
| | Excelsior Rd. to Sunrise Blvd. | 10100 | 80 | 20 | 3 | 6 | 65 | 400 | 186 |
| | Sunrise Blvd. to Grant Line Rd. | 13800 | 80 | 20 | 3 | 6 | 65 | 491 | 228 |
| | Grant Line Rd. to Dillard Rd. | 14200 | 80 | 20 | 3 | 6 | 65 | 501 | 232 |
| | Dillard Rd. to Latrobe Rd. | 11700 | 80 | 20 | 2 | 2 | 65 | 378 | 176 |
| | Latrobe Rd. to Murietta Pkwy. | 16200 | 80 | 20 | 2 | 2 | 65 | 470 | 218 |
| | Murietta Pkwy. to Ione Rd. | 10900 | 80 | 20 | 2 | 2 | 65 | 361 | 167 |
| | Ione Rd. to Amador County Line | 7400 | 80 | 20 | 2 | 5 | 65 | 313 | 145 |
| Highway 50 | Watt Ave. to Bradshaw Rd. | 186000 | 80 | 20 | 1 | 2 | 65 | 2302 | 1068 |
| | Sunrise Blvd. to Hazel Ave. | 130000 | 80 | 20 | 1 | 4 | 65 | 1957 | 908 |
| | Hazel Ave. to Aerojet Rd. | 118000 | 80 | 20 | 1 | 4 | 65 | 1835 | 852 |
| | Aerojet Rd. to Folsom Blvd. | 117000 | 80 | 20 | 3 | 3 | 65 | 1847 | 857 |
| | Folsom Blvd. to Prairie City Rd. | 93000 | 80 | 20 | 2 | 3 | 65 | 1553 | 721 |
| | Prairie City Rd. to Scott Rd. | 81000 | 80 | 20 | 3 | 4 | 65 | 1461 | 687 |
| | East of Scott Rd. | 88000 | 80 | 20 | 3 | 4 | 65 | 1544 | 717 |
| Highway 99 | Twin Cities Rd. to Mingo Rd. | 66000 | 80 | 20 | 6 | 9 | 65 | 1594 | 3434 |
| | Mingo Rd. to Arno Rd. | 66000 | 80 | 20 | 6 | 9 | 65 | 1594 | 3434 |
| | Arno Rd. to Dillard Rd. | 67000 | 80 | 20 | 6 | 9 | 65 | 1610 | 3469 |
| | Dillard Rd. to Eschinger Rd. | 67000 | 80 | 20 | 6 | 9 | 65 | 1610 | 3469 |
### Table 1
### FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model Data Inputs and Distances to 60 and 65 dB Ldn Contours
### Sacramento County Element - Existing (2006) Conditions
| Highway | Location | ADT | Day % | Night % | Truck % Med. | Truck % Hvy. | Speed | Distance to Contours, feet 60 dB Ldn | Distance to Contours, feet 65 dB Ldn |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | Elkhorn Blvd. to Elverta Rd. | 43500 | 80 | 20 | 4 | 6 | 65 | 1071 | 2306 |
| | North of Elverta Rd. | 38500 | 80 | 20 | 4 | 6 | 65 | 987 | 2126 |
Source: Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System, Caltrans, 2005 & FHWA-RD-77-108
### Table 2
### Multipliers for Use in Predicting Distances to Future Traffic Noise Contours
### Based on Increases in Daily Traffic Volumes
| % Increase in Average Daily Traffic Volume | Increase in Traffic Noise Level, dB Ldn | Noise Contour Distance Multiplier |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 10% | 0.4 | 1.1 |
| 20% | 0.8 | 1.1 |
| 30% | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| 40% | 1.5 | 1.3 |
| 50% | 1.8 | 1.3 |
| 60% | 2.0 | 1.4 |
| 70% | 2.3 | 1.4 |
| 80% | 2.6 | 1.5 |
| 90% | 2.8 | 1.5 |
| 100% | 3.0 | 1.6 |
#### Arterial Roadways
The data contained in Table 1 are limited to existing Highways in Sacramento County, and do not cover major arterial roadways within the County. As the circulation Element of the Sacramento County General Plan is updated, additional analysis of existing and projected future traffic noise levels within for the major County arterial roadways can and should be performed for these roadways. In the absence of existing and projected future traffic data for the major roadways in the County, the distance to the 65 dB Ldn traffic noise contours for these roadways can be estimated using Figure 2.
### Figure 2
### Nomograph for Estimating Distances to 65 dB Ldn Contours for Arterial Roadways
<>
# RAILROADS
### Freight and Passenger Heavy Rail
The heavy rail operators within the County consist of the Union pacific Railroad (UPRR), Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), and Amtrak. The Central California Traction Company (CCTC) also has trackage in the County, but it reportedly has not been used for rail service for several years. The locations of the heavy rail tracks are shown on Figure 3.
In order of to quantify train activity and the associated noise levels along the BNSF tracks, continuous noise monitoring of railroad activity on both the UPPR and BNSF tracks was conducted. The results were compared to similar data previously collected. Although daily train usage of these tracks varies, based upon the results of this and previous monitoring periods the approximate number of existing operations on the local tracks was determined. In addition, the SEL (Sound Exposure Level) of individual trains were recorded along with the duration and maximum noise level during the monitoring program. The Mean SEL for railroad operations (both with and without warning horns), was used with the number of daily operations to compute the approximate distances to the 65 dB Ldn Railroad contours for the various tracks in Sacramento County. Because the numbers of daily operations on the heavy rail tracks has varied considerably in recent years between 20 and 40 trains per day, this analysis provides distances to the 65 dB Ldn contour for a range of railroad operations, with the results of this analysis reported in Table 3.
### Table 3
### Estimated Daily Operations and Distances to Railroad Noise Contours (feet)
### Sacramento County, CA
| | Distance to 65 dB Ldn (feet) | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Daily Operations | Without Horn | With Horn |
| 20 | 217 | 467 |
| 25 | 252 | 542 |
| 30 | 284 | 612 |
| 35 | 315 | 679 |
| 40 | 344 | 742 |
Figure 3
Sacramento County Noise Element Update
Sacramento, California
<>
### Light Rail
The unincorporated portion of Sacramento County is served by Regional Transit Light Rail along the Folsom Boulevard / Highway 50 corridor between the City of Rancho Cordova and Folsom, and along the northeast corridor between the City of Sacramento and Watt Avenue, with future service proposed to Sacramento International Airport and to Elk Grove.
In order to quantify train activity and the associated noise levels along the light-rail tracks, a noise monitoring survey of light-rail train activity was conducted along the tracks between the Hazel Avenue and Iron Point Stations on January 5-6, 2006. The results were compared to similar data previously collected adjacent to light rail tracks.
Based on the Sacramento Regional Transit Light Rail Schedule, it was determined that the numbers of light rail vehicle passby=s on the tracks within Sacramento County varies, with approximately 140 train pass-bys per day along areas with double tracks, and approximately 60 train pass-bys per day along the single tracks. The Sound Exposure Level (SEL) of individual trains was recorded along with the duration and maximum noise level during the monitoring survey. The aggregate of the data collected indicates that at a distance of 100 feet, the average train operating on these tracks will produce an SEL of approximately 90 dB with usage of the warning horn, and approximately 86 dB without the usage of the horn. Trains are generally required to sound warning horns as they approach at-grade crossings.
Table 4 shows the computed light rail train noise levels in terms of Ldn at a distance of 100 feet from the tracks, as well as the predicted distances to the light rail noise contours in feet. These tables are broken into three categories corresponding to locations where no warning horns are applied (approximately 500+ feet from at grade crossings), locations where warning horns are applied but sufficiently removed from warning bells (approximately 100 to 500 feet from the intersection), and locations affected by both warning horns and warning bells (within 100 feet from the at-grade intersection).
| Table 4 |
| :--- |
| **Computed Light-Rail Noise Levels** |
| Daily Operations | Ldn @ 100= from Center Line of Tracks | | |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| | **0-100= from G/C** | **100=-500= from** | **500=+ from G/C** |
| 50 | 32 | 24 | 17 |
| 75 | 42 | 31 | 23 |
| 100 | 51 | 37 | 28 |
| 125 | 59 | 43 | 32 |
| 150 | 67 | 49 | 36 |
# NON-TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES
The production of noise is a result of many processes and activities, even when the best available noise control technology is applied. Noise exposures within industrial facilities are controlled by Federal and State employee health and safety regulations (OSHA), but exterior noise levels may exceed locally acceptable standards. Commercial, recreational and public service facility activities can also produce noise which affects adjacent sensitive land uses.
From a land use planning perspective, fixed-source noise control issues focus upon two goals: to prevent the introduction of new noise-producing uses in noise-sensitive areas, and to prevent encroachment of noise-sensitive uses upon existing noise-producing facilities. The first goal can be achieved by applying noise performance standards to proposed new noise-producing uses. The second goal can be met by requiring that new noise-sensitive uses in proximity to noise-producing facilities include mitigation measures to ensure compliance with those noise performance standards.
Descriptions of existing representative fixed noise sources in Sacramento County are provided below. These uses are intended to be representative of the relative noise generation of such uses, and are intended to identify specific noise sources which should be considered in the review of development proposals. Site specific noise analyses should be performed where noise sensitive land uses are proposed in proximity to these (or similar) noise sources, or where similar sources are proposed to be located near noise-sensitive land uses.
### General Service Commercial and Light Industrial Uses
Noise sources associated with service commercial uses such as automotive repair facilities, wrecking yards, tire installation centers, car washes, loading docks, etc., are found at various locations within Sacramento County. The noise emissions of these types of uses are dependent on many factors, and are therefore, difficult to quantify precisely. Nonetheless, noise generated by these uses contribute to the ambient noise environment in the immediate vicinity of these uses, and should be considered where either new noise-sensitive uses are proposed nearby or where similar uses are proposed in existing residential areas.
### Parks and School Playing Fields
There are several park and school uses within the City. These uses are spread throughout the City. Noise generated by these uses depends on the age and number of people utilizing the respective facility at a given time, and the types of activities they are engaged in. School playing field activities tend to generate more noise than those of neighborhood parks, as the intensity of school playground usage tends to be higher. At a distance of 100 feet from an elementary school playground being used by 100 students, average and maximum noise levels of 60 and 75 dB, respectively, can be expected. At organized events such as high school football games with large crowds and public address systems, the noise generation is often significantly higher. As with service commercial uses, the noise generation of parks and school playing fields is variable.
### AeroJet General
Aerojet, a GenCorp Inc. company, is a major space and defense contractor specializing in missile and space propulsion, and defense and armaments. It is located south of Highway 50 between Hazel Avenue and Prairie City Road. Although located within the City of Rancho Cordova Sphere of Influence, Consideration should be given to the noise generation of this facility should County development be proposed in the vicinity of Aerojet.
### Cordova Shooting Center
The Cordova Shooting Center is located on Douglas Road west of Sunrise Boulevard. The facility is used for small arms, rifle and shotgun firing and is open 7 day a week with hours beginning as early as 9 am and ending as late as 7 pm. Firearms used at this facility and similar shooting ranges generate maximum noise levels ranging from approximately 95 dB to 115 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Due to the impulsive nature of the noise generated at this facility, and the fact that impulsive noises have been found to be more annoying than steady state noises, proposals for development of noise-sensitive land uses in the general vicinity of this use should be carefully evaluated for noise impact.
### Aggregate Facilities
There are various aggregate mining and processing facilities within the Project Planning Area. Operations at aggregate facilities typically consist of the excavation of aggregate material using front-loaders and/or self elevating scrapers, the transfer of that material via truck or conveyor to the processing plant, where it is crushed and screened into various sized products, and the load out of the material via heavy trucks. Some facilities include asphalt concrete plants and Portland cement concrete plants. The noise generation of such facilities varies by size, type of equipment, and hours of operation, but processing plant equipment normally ranges from 80 to 90 dB Leq at a distance of 100 feet from the processing plant equipment. Because of the early startup hours normally associated with these types of uses, and the high noise generation of the mining and processing equipment, proposals for development of noise-sensitive land uses in the general vicinity of this use should be carefully evaluated for noise impact.
### Softball Games
Softball games and other organized outdoor activities produce unacceptable noise levels in residential areas. Crowd noise from softball games has been measured at up to 70 dBA at 350 feet from the bleachers. Area residents may complain about crowd noise, particularly if the event persists beyond 10 pm. In general, organized outdoor activities should be evaluated to determine whether crowd noise will exceed acceptable noise levels at adjacent residential uses, and such activities should be regulated as appropriate.
### Auto Dismantlers
There are various auto dismantlers along Recycle Road in Sacramento County. These operations exhibited similar characteristics, with forklifts being the primary noise sources. The Recycle Road area is well suited for these types of light industrial uses due to the presence of other significant noise sources such as Sunrise Blvd and an Aggregate facility, and because these uses are not considered noise-sensitive.
Although these auto dismantling operations do not individually produce significant noise levels, their collective noise output and that of Sunrise Blvd and the Aggregate facility is significant. Introduction of noise sensitive uses into this area should not be allowed without careful consideration of existing noise impacts.
### Raceways
The Sacramento Raceway is located on Excelsior Road north of Jackson Highway. The Raceway facilities include a quarter mile drag strip, and a midget car and motocross dirt oval track. Racing typically takes place on Wednesday and Friday nights with occasional large events on weekends. During previous Governor's Cup races, maximum noise levels of 130 dBA were measured at a distance of 100 feet from the drag strip during Top Fuel Funny Car races. Maximum noise levels measured during Pro- Gas, Door-Slammer and Alcohol Dragster races registered between 100 and 120 dBA at the same location.
### Wilbur Ellis Fertilizer Plant
Wilbur-Ellis Company is located on 4707 Twin Cities Road west of Interstate 5 and south of Dierssen Road. Wilbur-Ellis Company produces blended fertilizer. Hours of operation are typically 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM Monday B Friday. Noise producing equipment used at Wilbur-Ellis consists of electrical motor driven processing equipment. The facility generates about 3 truck trips on a typical day, and Wilbur-Ellis plans to do some expansion, however there are no specific plans in place at this time. Wilbur-Ellis has not had any noise complaints to date.
### Dog Kennels
The Sacramento County Animal Control Shelter is located at 4290 Bradshaw Road, north of Kiefer Blvd. The facility contains several kennels used to hold sick, lost and stray animals. Noise measurements have been previously conducted around the perimeter of the kennels to determine the noise levels generated by barking dogs. Average noise levels of 80 and 66 dBA were measured at distances of 30 and 100 feet from the dog kennels, respectively, with several dogs barking. Although kennel related noise levels at the Sacramento County Shelter are masked by Bradshaw Road traffic noise, construction of similar kennels in noise sensitive areas would probably lead to noise conflicts, especially during nighttime hours.
### Sacramento River Power Boats
Power boats have been identified as potentially significant producers of noise along the Sacramento River. Boat noise levels in the vicinity of marinas are not typically obtrusive due to a 5 mph speed limit. Increased boat speeds in areas removed from marinas result in correspondingly higher noise levels. Maximum noise levels of power boat operations on the Sacramento River typically range from 80 to 86 dBA at the riverbank.
### Truck Stops
Noise associated with truck stops is primarily defined by heavy trucks entering, idling, and leaving the facility. To prolong engine life, heavy truck engines often idle for long periods of time while parked at truck stops. Noise measurements of truck stops indicate that average noise levels of 70 dBA at a distance of 50 feet can be expected from such facilities, and that ten trucks idling continuously over a 24-hour period would produce an Ldn of 60 dB at a distance of approximately 1000 feet.
### Car Washes
Noise is generated at car wash facilities by high pressure water nozzles, automated washing equipment, vacuums and large blow dryers. Noise measurements of various car wash facilities indicate typical noise average noise levels of 70-80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the wash tunnels are common. The principal noise source identified for car washes are the blowers used for drying the vehicles.
### Public Address Systems
Public address systems at businesses such as automobile dealerships and auction yards, industrial facilities and recreational areas are considered potentially significant noise sources in Sacramento County. Noise levels produced by public address systems are a function of voice level, volume setting, amplifier power, shielding, wind direction and other atmospheric effects. According to Division of Environmental Health staff, PA system noise levels of 55 to 60 dBA have prompted complaints from nearby residents in the past. The use of public address systems in the vicinity of noise sensitive developments is thus a concern. The Sacramento County noise control ordinance currently regulates noise from public address systems.
### Automotive Repair Facilities
There are many automotive repair facilities in Sacramento County providing a variety of services. Typically the most significant noise levels are generated by pneumatic tools. Noise measurement data collected at various locations indicate that a typical impact wrench produces a maximum noise level of 73.3 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.
### Scandia Family Fun Center
The Scandia Family Fun Center is located at 5070 Hillsdale Boulevard near the Madison Avenue overcrossing at Interstate 80. Typical hours of operation are from 10 am to 1 am on weekends with fewer operating hours on weekdays and reduced hours during the off season. Facilities at Scandia include an indoor arcade, batting cages, two 18-hole miniature golf courses, bumper boats and a miniature Indy car race track. Noise at the site is dominated by traffic noise from Interstate 80. Noise measurements of various Scandia activities indicate maximum noise levels of 80 dBA at a distance of 10 feet from the center of the mini race car track with five race cars operating. At a distance of 15 feet from the path of the bumper boats a maximum noise level of 76 dBA was recorded. The only other significant noise source was the batting cages. Noise measurements conducted 10 feet from the batting area recorded maximum noise levels of 72 to 78 dBA resulting from the impact of the bat and ball. Noise measurements at the perimeter of the Scandia center were not possible due to the I-80 traffic noise exposure.
### Shopping Center Loading Docks
Shopping centers and grocery stores are often located near residential developments, and loading dock activities usually involve heavy trucks and forklifts. Loading dock activities commonly take place in the early morning hours involving several medium and heavy trucks at a time. Recent noise measurements of loading dock activities at several locations in Sacramento County resulted in maximum truck passage noise levels ranging from 69 to 74 dBA at a distance of 100 feet. Smaller delivery trucks produced maximum levels of 67 dBA at 50 feet. Maximum forklift noise levels ranged from 60 to 70 dBA at 100 feet.
### Child Care Centers
Child care centers are potentially significant noise sources in Sacramento County, and have generated public concern and complaints at some locations. Children using the outdoor play areas of day care centers often speak in elevated voices, or shout to be heard and/or recognized. The noise produced by equipment used at outdoor play areas, such as swings, slides, etc., is not usually significant relative to the noise generated by the children. Noise measurements of childcare facilities indicate average noise levels of 55-60 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the play areas with 7 children playing. With 20 and 40 children playing, average noise levels are predicted to be 60 and 63 dBA, respectively, at a distance of 50 feet.
### Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (Hvac) Systems
HVAC noise sources include fans, pumps, cooling towers, compressors, condensers, and boilers. HVAC equipment is associated with virtually every type of inhabited structure, including residential, commercial and industrial uses. Large HVAC components are often housed in mechanical equipment rooms which reduce the transmitted noise. However, HVAC equipment must sometimes be located outdoors to provide adequate ventilation or heat exchange.
### Landfills
The Sacramento County Landfill is located at Kiefer Road near Grant Line Road in the central eastern section of the county. Typical hours of operation at this facility are from 7 am to 5 pm. The landfill is surrounded by mostly undeveloped rolling terrain. Significant noise sources at this location include bulldozers, backup warning devices, garbage trucks, and private and commercial traffic using the landfill. Noise measurements conducted at the landfill yielded an average noise level of 71 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the main dump activity area.
The North Area Transfer Station is located at 3450 Roseville Road. The facility operates 7 days per week from 8:30 am to 5 pm. Operations at this facility are similar to the South Area Transfer Station discussed above, except that a large trash compacter is used for compacting, rather than a front bucket loader. The trash compacter is motor-driven, and forces compacted garbage into the tractor trailer trucks for transport to the County Landfill. An average noise level of 71 dBA was previously measured at a distance of 50 feet from the dumping area.
### COMMUNITY NOISE SURVEY
To quantify existing noise levels in the quieter parts of Sacramento County, a community noise survey was performed at 5 locations in this County which are removed from major noise sources. The locations were monitored over a continuous 24-hour period. The results of the community noise survey are provided in Table 4, and Figures 5-10 show the measurement sites and continuous monitoring results.
#### Table 5
#### Sacramento County Noise Element Community Noise Survey Results
| Site (see figures 5-10) | Date | Daytime Leq | Nighttime Leq | Ldn |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Site 1 | 10/13/05-10/14/05 | 53 dB | 47 dB | 55 dB |
| Site 2 | 10/13/05- | 49 dB | 46 dB | 53 dB |
| Site 3 | 10/13/05-10/14/05 | 55 dB | 53 dB | 60 dB |
| Site 4 | 10/13/05-10/14/05 | 54 dB | 44 dB | 54 dB |
| Site 5 | 10/18/05-10/19/05 | 46 dB | 39 dB | 48 dB |
Figure 5
Sacramento County Noise Element Update
Sacramento, California
<>
#### Figure 6
#### Sacramento County Noise Element Background Report Site 1
#### 24hr Continuous Noise Monitoring
#### 10/13/05-10/14/05
<>
**Ldn: 55 dB**
Figure 7
Sacramento County Noise Element Background Report Site 2
24hr Continuous Noise Monitoring
10/13/05-10/14/05
<>
Ldn: 53 dB
### Figure 8
### Sacramento County Noise Element Background Report Site 3
### 24hr Continuous Noise Monitoring
### 10/13/05-10/14/05
<>
| Ldn: | 60 | dB |
| --- | --- | --- |
#### Figure 9
#### Sacramento County Noise Element Background Report Site 4
#### 24hr Continuous Noise Monitoring
#### 10/13/05-10/14/05
<>
| Ldn: | 54 | dB |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
Figure 10
Sacramento County Noise Element Background Report Site 5
24hr Continuous Noise Monitoring
10/18/05-10/19/05
<>
Ldn: 47 dB
# AIRPORTS
There are several public use airports in Sacramento County. This section describes the location and nature of operations at each airport. The CNEL contours which have been adopted, or are currently being considered, by the County Board of Supervisors for planning purposes are included below for the County Airports. As new noise contours are adopted for use by the Board, the contours contained in the Noise Element will be updated to reflect the adopted contours. Those contours shall be used to describe projected future operations for the purposes of the Noise Element. The major Airports located within the County Airport system include Sacramento International Airport, Mather Airport, Executive Airport, and McClellan Airport. Because operations and noise programs associated with the County airports are dynamic, the reader is referred to http://www.sacairports.org/int/index.html for the most current information pertaining to aircraft activity in the County.
It should be noted that the General Plan Noise Element guidelines and background information are utilized for new project development, and not for the resolution of existing conditions or issues pertaining to compatibility between existing noise-sensitive land uses and the County airports.
### Sacramento International Airport
Sacramento International Airport is located northwest of the City of Sacramento near I-5 and the Sacramento River. The airport is currently surrounded by agricultural uses, but development of the Metro Air Center is underway to the immediate east of the airport. The North and South Natomas areas are currently planned and are actively being developed for commercial and residential uses, and there is a potential for noise conflicts with the airport as these areas are further developed. At current passenger levels, the airport has about 160 scheduled daily flights serving about 20,000 passengers per day. This generates approximately 30,000 vehicle trips within the regional area each day. Figure 11 shows the noise contours for Sacramento International Airport.
### Mather Airport
Mather Airport is located in central Sacramento County, just south of the newly formed City of Rancho Cordova. Since its conversion from a military airfield to a public/commercial facility, operations have steadily increased at this facility, as have issues relative to local development. The airport is in the process of developing new noise contours for use in guiding future growth in the airport vicinity, and two scenarios are presented in Figure 12. A preferred scenario will ultimately be selected by the Board of Supervisors, with this Noise Element to be amended to reflect the contours which are ultimately adopted by the Board for use in planning purposes.
### McClellan Airport
McClellan Airport is located in north-central Sacramento County, just northeast of the City of Sacramento. Since its conversion from a military airfield to a public/commercial facility,
operations have increased at this facility, although not as quickly as Mather Airport. The airport noise contours for use in guiding future growth in the airport vicinity are presented in Figure 13.
### Sacramento Executive Airport
This airport is located in the City of Sacramento, and is surrounded by residential, commercial, and light industrial uses. Given that the area surrounding the airport is essentially built out, and that there is a considerable buffer between the airport and undeveloped County properties, this airport does not likely present significant noise impacts to future development within the unincorporated County.
Executive Airport's planning and development are handled by the Sacramento County's Planning and Development department. Sacramento County Airport System operates Executive Airport. Executive Airport is approximately 540 acres, much of it already developed or in a clear zone. Executive is preparing for a Master Plan Study that will lay the groundwork for the future of Executive Airport with community input.
### Franklin Field
Franklin Field, located at 12480 Bruceville Road, Elk Grove, CA is currently a public use airport owned and operated by the County of Sacramento. The facility is considered an uncontrolled airport since it does not have an air traffic control tower or personnel. There are approximately 36,000 operations each year at Franklin Field, including flight training.
### Figure 11
### Sacramento County Noise Element
### Sacramento International Airport 60 dB CNEL Noise Contours
<>
Figure 12
Sacramento County Noise Element
Mather Airport 60 dB CNEL Noise Contours
<>
Figure 13
Sacramento County Noise Element
McClellan Airport 60 dB CNEL Noise Contour
<>
# Sacramento County General Plan
## Noise Element Background
### Appendix B
### Examples of Policy Application
#### INTRODUCTION
The following examples are intended to provide guidance to Sacramento County Planning Staff regarding the application of the General Plan Noise Element Standards. Due to the wide ranging number of noise sources and sensitive receiver types/designs, it is not practical for the Noise Element Policies to contain specific language for each possible combination. As a result, the Noise Element policies have been developed to apply to broad categories of noise sources and sensitive receptors, and may require interpretation in some cases. When such interpretation is necessary, the focus should be on a reasonable assessment of noise impacts at locations where noise-sensitivity either already exists, or where sensitive areas would be created as a result of a project.
#### Traffic and Railroad Noise Sources
NO-1. The noise level standards for noise-sensitive areas of new uses affected by traffic or railroad noise sources in Sacramento County are shown by Table 1. Where the noise level standards of Table 1 are predicted to be exceeded at new uses proposed within Sacramento County which are affected by traffic or railroad noise, appropriate noise mitigation measures shall be included in the project design to reduce projected noise levels to a state of compliance with the Table 1 standards.
**Example:** A single family residential development is proposed on a project site which is adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. A noise analysis indicates that noise level in the backyards and nearest building facades located adjacent to the tracks is 73 dB Ldn. According to Table 1, the exterior noise level standard applicable to the backyard areas is 65 dB Ldn. As a result, the project would need to provide noise mitigation to reduce railroad noise exposure in the nearest backyards of this development by 8 dB in order to comply with the 65 dB Ldn standard. Such mitigation could take the form of increased setbacks, reorientation of the residences such that back yard areas are shielded by the residential structure, and/or construction of solid noise berms/barriers between the tracks and back yard spaces.
At the interior spaces of these residences, Table 1 indicates that 45 dB Ldn is the applicable noise standard for residential uses. Furthermore, footnote 5 indicates that maximum railroad noise levels shall not exceed 70 dB within residences during train passages to minimize the potential for sleep disturbance during nighttime train passages. Given an exterior noise level of 73 at the nearest building facades, the exterior to interior noise reduction necessary from those facades would be 28 dB.
Because standard residential construction provides approximately 25 dB of exterior to interior noise reduction, it is likely that upgrades to façade construction would be required to ensure satisfaction with the 45 dB Ldn standard. Depending on measured maximum noise levels at the project site, it is likely that such upgrades would be necessary to achieve satisfaction with the 70 dB Lmax interior noise standard as well.
This example would be applicable to the same development if the noise source in question were traffic instead or railroad. The only difference would be that the 70 dB Lmax standard would not be applicable.
In the same example, if the proposed use were a church, office building, or industry, the 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard would only be applied if the project included a noise-sensitive component, such as employee break area, or other noise-sensitive outdoor activity area. If no such area is proposed as part of the development, then only the interior noise level standards shown in Table 1 for the respective uses would apply.
### Aircraft Noise Sources
NO-2. Proposals for new development within Sacramento County which may be affected by aircraft noise shall be evaluated relative to Table 4: *Land Use Compatibility for Aircraft Noise.*
**Example:** A residential development is proposed on a project site which is located between the 60 and 65 dB CNEL contours of McClellan Airport. According to Table 4, residential uses are not compatible with aircraft noise environments exceeding 60 dB CNEL, so this development would not be permitted.
If the proposed use in this example was an elementary school, the use would be permitted, as Table 4 indicates that school uses are permitted in aircraft environments up to 70 dB CNEL.
NO-3. New residential development within the 60 CNEL noise contours adopted by the County for planning purposes at any airport or Helipad within Sacramento County shall be prohibited. This policy is not applicable to Executive Airport.
**Example:** This policy is self-explanatory.
NO-4. New residential development within adopted Airport Policy Area boundaries, but outside the 60 CNEL, shall be subject to the following conditions:
A. Provide minimum noise insulation to 45 dB CNEL within new residential dwellings, including detached single family dwellings, with windows closed in any habitable room.
B. Notification in the Public Report prepared by the California Department of Real Estate disclosing the fact to prospective buyers that the parcel is located within an Airport Policy Area.
C. An Avigation Easement prepared by the Sacramento County Counsel’s Office granted to the County of Sacramento, recorded with the Sacramento County Recorder, and filed with Department of Airports. Such Avigation Easement shall acknowledge the property location within an Airport Planning Policy Area and shall grant the right of flight and unobstructed passage of all aircraft into and out of the subject Airport.
Exceptions: New accessory residential dwellings on parcels zoned Agricultural, Agricultural-Residential, Interim Agricultural, Interim General Agricultural, or Interim Limited Agricultural and between the 60 and 65 CNEL contours, shall be permitted within adopted Airport Policy Area boundaries, but would be subject to the conditions listed above.
**Discussion:** The intent of this policy is to recognize that annoyance can occur at residential developments despite being in compliance with the permissible 60 dB CNEL noise standard. It provides additional safeguards to the prospective buyer of the property through disclosure statements, and provides safeguards to the airport through the avigation easement.
### Non-Transportation Noise Sources
NO-5. The interior and exterior noise level standards for noise-sensitive areas of new uses affected by existing non-transportation noise sources in Sacramento County are shown by Table 2. Where the noise level standards of Table 2 are predicted to be exceeded at a proposed noise-sensitive area due to existing non-transportation noise sources, appropriate noise mitigation measures shall be included in the project design to reduce projected noise levels to a state of compliance with the Table 2 standards within sensitive areas.
**Example:** A school is proposed adjacent to a concrete batch plant facility. According to Table 2, the school would need to be designed so that noise-sensitive exterior spaces such as playground and outdoor theater or dining areas would not be exposed to median and maximum noise levels exceeding 55 dB and 75 dB, respectively, during daytime hours. Because schools are not in session during nighttime hours (10 pm o 7 am), there are no standards applicable to the school use at night.
In addition to the noise level standards applicable at exterior spaces, Table 2 also indicates that the noise standards which would be applicable to noise-sensitive interior spaces (classrooms, multi-purpose rooms, administrative offices, etc) would be 35 dB L50 and 60 dB Lmax.
NO-6. Where a project would consist of or include non-transportation noise sources, the noise generation of those sources shall be mitigated so as not exceed the interior and exterior noise level standards of Table 2 at existing noise-sensitive areas in the project vicinity.
**Example:** If the example for Policy 5 was reversed, and a concrete batch plant were proposed adjacent to an existing school, the same standards would be applicable. The difference being that the concrete batch plant would need to limit its noise emissions so as to satisfy the Table 2 standards at the noise-sensitive exterior and interior spaces of the development.
NO-7. The "last use there" shall be responsible for noise mitigation. However, if a noise-generating use is proposed adjacent to lands zoned for uses which may have sensitivity to noise, then the noise generating use shall be responsible for mitigating its noise generation to a state of compliance with the Table 2 standards at the property line of the generating use in anticipation of the future neighboring development.
**Discussion:** The intent of this standard is to place the responsibility for providing noise mitigation with the new use, as illustrated in the examples provided for Policies 5 and 6. In the Policy 5 example, the industry was already there so the school
would be required to design and implement mitigation to ensure the Table 2 standards would be satisfied. In the Policy 6 example, the school came first so the responsibility for mitigation would fall with the industry.
### Construction Noise
NO-8. Noise associated with construction activities shall adhere to the County Code requirements. Specifically, Section 6.68.090(e) addresses construction noise within the County.
**Discussion:** This policy recognizes that noise generated by construction activities is addressed in the County Code and that the noise standards of Tables 1 or 2 are not applicable provided that the construction adheres to the County Code requirements.
### Transportation Projects
NO-9. For capacity enhancing roadway or rail projects, or the construction of new roadways or railways, a noise analysis shall be prepared in accordance with the Table 3 requirements. If pre-project traffic noise levels already exceed the noise standards of Table 1 and the increase is significant as defined below, noise mitigation measures should be considered to reduce traffic and/or rail noise levels to a state of compliance with the Table 1 standards. A significant increase is defined as follows:
| Pre-Project Noise Environment (Ldn) | Significant Increase |
| :--- | :--- |
| Less than 60 dB | 5+ dB |
| 60 - 65 dB | 3+ dB |
| Greater than 65 dB | 1.5+ dB |
**Example:** A major intersection in Sacramento County is being improved and existing traffic noise levels in the project vicinity currently exceed 65 dB. However, the project is for restriping only to add additional turn lanes and the project's noise level increase would be less than a decibel. Under this policy, the County would not be required to consider noise mitigation for this project.
If under this same example, the project involved a widening which would result in a traffic noise level increase of 3 dB, the County would be required to consider noise mitigation for the project.
NO-10. For interim capacity enhancing roadway or rail projects, or the construction of new interim roadways or railways, it may not be practical or feasible to provide mitigation if the ultimate roadway or railway design would render the interim improvements ineffective or obsolete. An example would be a noise barrier constructed for an interim project which would need to be removed to accommodate the ultimate project. The following factors should be considered in determining whether or not noise mitigation will be implemented for interim project, but in general, noise mitigation for interim projects would not be provided:
a. The severity of the impact
b. The cost and effectiveness of the mitigation.
c. The number of properties which would benefit from the mitigation.
d. The foreseeable duration between interim and ultimate improvements.
e. Aesthetic, safety and engineering considerations.
**Discussion:** The intent of this policy is to recognize that there may be cases where interim projects could technically require noise mitigation based on the standards of Policy 9, but that the mitigation measures would normally not be implemented for interim projects. Nonetheless, the policy contains flexibility for the County to consider the factors affecting mitigation decisions on a project by project basis.
NO-11. If noise-reducing pavement is to be utilized in conjunction with a roadway improvement project, of if such paving existing adjacent to a proposed new noise-sensitive land use, the acoustical benefits of such pavement shall be included in the noise analysis prepared for the project.
**Discussion:** Many County roadway improvement projects have utilized noise-reducing pavement. The intent of this policy is to recognize the noise reducing benefits of such pavements in partially or completely mitigating potential noise impacts, thereby decreasing dependence on solid noise barriers.
### General Noise Policy
NO-12. All noise analyses prepared to determine compliance with the noise level standards contained within this Noise Element shall be prepared in accordance with Table 3.
**Discussion:** The intent of this policy is to provide uniformity in terms of process and reporting for acoustical analyses required by the County.
NO-13. Where noise mitigation measures are required to satisfy the noise level standards of this Noise Element, emphasis shall be placed on the use of setbacks and site design to the extent feasible, prior to consideration of the use of noise barriers.
**Discussion:** The intent of this Policy is to recognize the County’s desire to explore alternatives to noise barriers as effective forms of noise mitigation. This measure does not mandate that alternate measures be required over barriers should such measures be considered infeasible.
NO-14. Noise analyses prepared for multi-family residential projects, town homes, mixed-use, condominiums, or other residential projects where floor ceiling assemblies or party-walls shall be common to different owners/occupants, shall be consistent with the State of California Noise Insulation standards.
**Example:** Where a new apartment project is proposed, a noise analysis prepared for the project should address compliance with the floor ceiling and party wall noise requirements of the State Noise Insulation standards. The intent of this standard is to ensure that the State standards are addressed.
NO-15. The County shall have the flexibility to consider the application of 5 dB less restrictive exterior noise standards than those prescribed in Tables 1 and 2 in cases where it is impractical or infeasible to reduce exterior noise levels within infill projects to a state of compliance with the Table 1 or 2 standards. In such cases, the rational for such consideration shall be clearly presented and disclosure statements and noise easements should be included as conditions of project approval. The interior noise level standards of Tables 1 and 2 would still apply.
**Discussion:** This policy recognizes that development of certain infill sites adjacent to uses similar to those being proposed may not be feasible due to elevated noise exposure. This policy provides the County with flexibility in relaxing the exterior noise standard by 5 dB in such cases.
### **Exemptions**
NO-16. The following sources of noise shall be exempt from the provisions of this Noise Element:
a. Emergency warning devices and equipment operated in conjunction with emergency situations, such as sirens and generators which are activated during power outages. The routine testing of such warning devices and equipment shall also be exempt provided such testing occurs during daytime hours.
b. Activities at schools, parks or playgrounds, provided such activities occur during daytime hours.
c. Activities associated with events for which a permit has been obtained from the County.
**Discussion:** The intent of this policy is to recognize that certain activities within the County may generate noise levels in excess of the Noise Element standards, but that such activities, such as approved fireworks displays or high school football games, for example, may be desirable even though the noise generation of those activities cannot practically be reduced to the Noise Element standards.
---
## Safety — Safety
- Source: https://landuse.saccounty.gov/archive/GPPD/GP_BackgroundReport_SA.pdf
- Pages: 57
- Covers: safety
# General Plan
# Safety Element
### BACKGROUND TO THE
### 1993 GENERAL PLAN AS AMENDED
Amended December 13, 2016
Amended September 26, 2017
Amended May 25, 2022
### County of Sacramento
### Office of Planning and Environmental Review
(blank page)
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
# SAFETY ELEMENT BACKGROUND
## TABLE OF CONTENTS
| Section | Title | Page |
| :--- | :--- | :---: |
| | SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, TECHNICAL DISCUSSION - - - | 1 |
| | FLOODING, TECHNICAL DISCUSSION - - - - - - - | 18 |
| | FIRE HAZARDS, TECHNICAL DISCUSSION- - - - - - - | 46 |
| | EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, TECHNICAL DISCUSSION- - - - - | 53 |
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
# SAFETY ELEMENT
### Background Section
## SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
## TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
### GEOLOGIC ENVIRONMENT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY
Sacramento County is centrally located in the Sacramento Valley between the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east and Coast Range Mountains to the west. The Valley has a diverse and complex geologic history created by the convergence of the Pacific and North American plates. Millions of years ago, the present-day Sacramento Valley was inundated by the Pacific Ocean. Over geologic time, the Pacific shoreline moved back and forth from the eastern side to the western side of the area. Today, the shoreline has moved westward to its current position, west of the California Coast Ranges, exposing the Sacramento Valley as it looks today. The upper geologic formations of Sacramento County are made up of floodplain and alluvial fan sediments, which derive from the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Beneath this immediate level are older marine sediments, followed by the underlying bedrock of the Pacific and North American Plates.[^p4-1]
A "geomorphic province" is comprised of an area of similar geologic origin and erosional/depositional history. Sacramento County is situated in portions of two geomorphic provinces. By far the largest portion of the County lies in the Great Valley province. A small area in the northeastern part of the County is in the Sierra Nevada province (Figure II-1).
[^p4-1]: Adapted from the Geology of the Northern Sacramento Valley, California, State of California, California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Water Resources -Northern Region Office, June 2014 - Updated: September 22, 2014, Prepared by the California Department of Water Resources Northern Region Office Groundwater and Geologic Investigations Section
<>
# Figure II-1
## Geomorphic Provinces in California
### Legend
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
Source: California Geological Survey
The Great Valley province can be further divided into four geomorphic subunits, as described below and shown in Figure II-2. Please note that Figure II-2 is for general illustrative purposes and is based on staff interpretation of preliminary geologic maps and data provided by the California Geologic Survey.
The Delta - The Delta, characterized by geologically young Holocene deposits (a period defined as encompassing only the past 11,000 years), includes the low-lying lands that extend along the County's southwestern boundary. The boundary of the Delta is arbitrarily fixed at the zero-elevation contour, which coincides with the contact between the organic and inorganic soils. Prior to human intervention, this region was dominated by tidal marshes that were traversed by meandering sloughs. Over time, however, the sloughs were altered and the marshes drained. Numerous islands have been created by the construction of a system of artificial levees. Please note that this geomorphic definition of the delta should not be confused with the definition of the Legal Delta as described in the Delta Protection Element.
River Floodplain - Adjacent to the Delta subunit is the river floodplain. This subunit consists of unconsolidated inorganic soils which were formed by the deposition of sediment when flood waters overtopped the rivers’ natural levees.
Alluvial Plain - Further to the east of the floodplain is an extensive area of former floodplain that has been highly dissected by subsequent stream erosion. The geologic subunit is comprised of older, Quaternary deposits (up to 2 million years old). This area is underlain by soil which is characterized by layers of hardpan or dense, impervious clay.
Low Foothills - The low foothill subunit, located east of the alluvial plain, is typified by rolling, boulder-strewn topography and is underlain by moderately consolidated silts, sands, and clays of continental origin. The small area in the northeast part of the County within the Sierra Nevada geomorphic province consists of Pliocene (up to 12 million years old) and older deposits and is characterized by steep-sided hills and narrow, rocky stream channels. Stream patterns here are well established and are controlled principally by bedrock features (Figures II-2 and II-3).
The Sierra Nevada geomorphic province is located in the extreme northwest of Sacramento County and consists of Pliocene and older deposits and is characterized by steep-sided hills and narrow, rocky stream channels. Stream patterns here are well established and are controlled principally by bedrock features.
SEISMIC HAZARDS
### FAULTING
A fault is defined as a tectonic fracture or break in the earth’s crust along which displacement (horizontal, vertical, or diagonal movement) has taken place[^p7-2]. For the purpose of planning, an active fault is one which has had surface displacement within Holocene time; or approximately the last 11,000 years. A potentially active fault is defined as a fault which has had surface displacement within Quaternary time (approximately the last 1.6 million years)[^p7-2]. It may be assumed that a fault which has been active in recent geologic time (Quaternary) is likely to be active again. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones are regulatory zones, delineated by the State Geologist, within which site-specific geologic studies are required to identify and avoid fault rupture hazards prior to subdivision of land and/or construction of most structures for human occupancy. Inactive faults are those which show no evidence of surface deformation in recent geologic time. It is important to note that groundshaking can still occur as a result of inactive faults that are considered “buried” but these faults do not result in surface deformation.
Two types of fault movement represent possible hazards to structures in the immediate vicinity of the fault: fault creep and sudden fault displacement. Fault creep, a slow movement of one side of a fault relative to the other, can cause cracking and buckling of sidewalks and foundations even without perceptible groundshaking. Sudden fault displacement occurs during an earthquake event and may result in the collapse of buildings or other structures that are found along the fault zone when fault displacement exceeds an inch or two. The only protection against damage caused directly by fault displacement is to prohibit construction in the fault zone.
The Richter scale is used to quantify the magnitude or strength of an earthquake, while the Mercalli scale is used to measure the intensity as it relates to structural and cultural features. The Modified Mercalli (MM) Intensity Scale measures the intensity of ground shaking at any particular site in response to fault movement. The MM Intensity Scale is useful in planning for seismic safety, as it translates the intensity of earthquake shaking into possible damaging effects on structures. However, this scale should be used with caution because it relates to older structures (pre-1933) rather than to those built in accordance with modern building codes (Tables II-1 and II-2).
[^p7-2]: Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault activity map of California: California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6, map scale 1:750,000. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/cgs_history/Documents/FAM_phamplet.pdf
<>
# Figure II-2
## Geomorphic Sub Units
**Legend**
| | | | | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | Delta | | Foothill | — Rivers |
| | River Floodplain | | Sierra Nevada | |
| | Alluvial Plain | | | |
Source: County staff interpretation of data from Gutierrez, C.I., 2011, Preliminary Geologic map of the Sacramento 30' x 60' quadrangle, California: California Geological Survey, Preliminary Geologic Maps, scale 1:100,000.
### TABLE II-1
### HISTORIC EARTHQUAKES IN THE VICINITY OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY
| Fault | Approximate Distance From Sacramento County Boundary | Historic Earthquake Date[^p9-3] | Magnitude (Richter)[^p9-4] |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| San Andreas | 46 | 1906;1989 | 7.8; 7.1 |
| Vaca | 5 | 1892 | 6.6 |
| Concord | 12 | 1955 | 5.4 |
| Greenville | 17 | 1980 | 5.1 |
| Hayward | 26 | 1868 | 7 |
| Calaveras | 21 | 1861; 1979; 2007 | 5.8; 5.74; 5.44 |
| Foothill Fault System (Cleveland Hill) | 48 | 1975 (Oroville) | 5.7 |
| Las Positas | 24 | 1980 | 5.4 |
| Great Valley (Midland) | 0 | 1892 | 5.6 |
| West Napa Fault | 22 | 2014 | 6.02 |
[^p9-3]: California Department of Conservation, *Fault Activity Map of California*, 2010. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/
[^p9-4]: California Department of Conservation, *Historic Earthquake Online Database*, 2017. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/historicearthquakes/
### TABLE II-2
### MODIFIED MERCALLI SCALE OF EARTHQUAKE INTENSITY
| Scale | Effects |
| :--- | :--- |
| I. | Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable conditions. |
| II. | Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floor of buildings. |
| III. | Felt quite noticeably by persons indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings. Many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibrations similar to the passing of a truck. Duration estimated. |
| IV. | Felt indoors by many, outdoors by few during the day. At night, some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. |
| V. | Felt by nearly everyone; many awakened. Some dishes, windows broken. Unstable objects overturned. Pendulum clocks may stop. |
| VI. | Felt by all, many frightened. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster. Damage slight. |
| VII. | Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable damage in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. |
| VIII. | Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse. Damage great in poorly built structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, and walls. Heavy furniture overturned. |
| IX. | Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb. Damage great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. |
| X. | Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent. |
| XI. | Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. |
| XII. | Damage total. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown into the air. |
Source: *The Severity of an Earthquake*, USGS General Interest Publication 1989-288-913.
The geological literature indicates that no major active faults transect the County, nor are there any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the County; however, there are several subsurface faults in the Delta. The Midland fault, buried under alluvium, extends north of Bethel Island in the Delta to the east of Lake Berryessa and is considered inactive. In 1892 an earthquake was recorded with an epicenter in Solano County, in the vicinity of the Midland Fault, which measured 5.6 on the Richter Scale; however, this earthquake did not result in surface deformation. To the east, the Bear Mountain fault zone trends northwest to southeast through Amador and El Dorado Counties. Geologists believe this series of faults has not been active in historic time; or approximately the last 200 years. Figure II-3 identifies the historically active faults in close proximity to Sacramento County.
While Sacramento County has experienced relatively little seismic activity, faulting in neighboring regions, especially the San Francisco Bay area and the Sierra Nevada, suggests that the County could be affected by future ground motion originating elsewhere (Table II-3). The greatest amount of groundshaking experienced in the County occurred on April 21, 1892, when an earthquake shook Yolo County between Winters and Vacaville. While the damage in Yolo County was severe, the damage in Sacramento County was substantially less. Damage to buildings in Sacramento was limited to statuary falling from building tops and cracks in chimneys. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake generated little shaking in Sacramento County and damage locally was limited to minor cracks in a local post office and jail. Similarly, Sacramento County suffered little damage from the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, which was felt over an area covering 400,000 square miles from Los Angeles to the California-Oregon border. The earthquake measured 7.1 on the Richter Scale; the epicenter was located along the San Andreas fault beneath the Santa Cruz Mountains, about 60 miles southeast of San Francisco. The San Francisco Bay region suffered over $6 billion in property damage and 62 lives were lost.
The 2014 South Napa earthquake, the largest since the Loma Prieta earthquake, measured a 6.0 on the Richter scale and could be felt within Sacramento County. While the damage was localized to the southern Napa and Vallejo region, there is possibility that future quakes of a larger magnitude could damage dams and levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
### GROUNDSHAKING
Groundshaking is motion that occurs as a result of energy released during faulting. The damage or collapse of buildings and other structures caused by groundshaking is among the most serious seismic hazards. Damage to structures from this vibration, or groundshaking, is caused by the transmission of earthquake vibrations from the ground to the structure. The intensity of shaking and its potential impact on buildings is determined by the physical characteristics of the underlying soil and rock, building materials and workmanship, earthquake magnitude and location of epicenter, and the character and duration of ground motion. Much of the County is located on alluvium which increases the amplitude of the earthquake wave. Ground motion lasts longer and waves are amplified more on loose, water-saturated materials than on solid rock. As a result, structures located on alluvium typically suffer greater damage than those located on solid rock.
<>
### Figure II-3
### Active Faults in the Vicinity of Sacramento County
— Displacement in the last 200 years
— Displacement in the last 11,700 years
— Displacement in the last 700,000 years
— Displacement undifferentiated
Source: California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey
Updated: 2017
### TABLE II-3
### APPROXIMATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE AND INTENSITY
| Richter Scale Magnitude | Maximum Expected Intensity (MM)* | Distance Felt (kilometers) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 2.0 - 2.9 | I - II | 0 |
| 3.0 - 3.9 | II - III | 15 |
| 4.0 - 4.9 | IV - V | 80 |
| 5.0 - 5.9 | VI - VII | 150 |
| 6.0 - 6.9 | VII - VIII | 220 |
| 7.0 - 7.9 | IX - X | 400 |
| 8.0 - 8.9 | XI - XII | 600 |
*Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.
Source: United State Geologic Survey, Earthquake Intensity Zonation and Quaternary Deposits, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 9093, 1977.
Maps indicating the maximum expectable intensity of groundshaking for the County are available through several sources. The California Geologic Survey has prepared a State map showing the predicted relative intensity of groundshaking and damage caused by future earthquakes. According to this map, the proximity of the Southern Delta region to major active faults subjects it more frequently to strong earthquake shaking than the rest of the County. The majority of the County is expected to experience less frequent and more mild groundshaking[^p14-5] (Figure II-4). Again, caution is advised in that the intensities shown are not applicable to modern earthquake-resistant construction. Since there are portions of the County where pre-1933 buildings exist, there is a threat to health and safety in cases where major groundshaking occurs.
Reservoirs are also sometimes subject to damage as a result of strong groundshaking. There are 21 significant dams in Sacramento County. Of these, only Folsom and Nimbus are under federal ownership and jurisdiction; the California Division of Safety of Dams takes jurisdiction over the remaining nineteen. The Division in recent years has required dam designs to be earthquake and seiche resistant and any construction or alteration must undergo a full seismic and geologic investigation. Water exceeding specified volumes may only be stored upon the issuance of a Certificate of Approval from the Division.
Several actions to minimize the damage to buildings from earthquakes and ground shaking have occurred since 1933. The construction of schools is regulated by the Field Act passed in 1933, when regulation and enforcement of construction codes became highly restrictive. Building regulations for hospitals are even more restrictive per the Alquist Hospital Seismic Safety Act of 1973 because hospitals must be fully functional after a disaster. In order to minimize danger caused by surface rupture along fault lines during an earthquake, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972) prohibits building structures meant for human occupancy across active fault lines. It also requires the State Geologist to map "Earthquake Fault Zones" and distribute to the relevant local agencies. While there are no Earthquake Fault Zones in Sacramento County, neighboring Yolo, Solano, and Contra Costa Counties contain active faults subject to Alquist-Priolo[^p14-6].
Additionally, all structures are subject to the California Building Code (CBC) adopted by the County. The CBC requires that structures be built to withstand groundshaking in areas of high earthquake hazards and that strong motion instruments be placed in larger buildings. These instruments are activated by strong groundshaking and record the response of the structure and the site of seismic activity. Buildings constructed prior to 1951 are not subject to CBC regulations. However, the Dangerous Building Code (County Code, Title 16, Chapter 22) provides abatement procedures, on a complaint basis, for existing structures deemed unsound.
[^p14-5]: California Geological Survey, Department of Conservation, *Earthquake Shaking Potential for California*. [http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/Documents/shaking_18x23.pdf](http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/Documents/shaking_18x23.pdf)
[^p14-6]: California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, Interim Revision 2007, *Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California*, 2007. [ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/Sp42.pdf](ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/Sp42.pdf)
LIQUEFACTION
Liquefaction is a process whereby water in unconsolidated soils is subjected to pressure, usually produced by ground motion, causing these materials to behave as quicksand. The result is that the underlying soil literally flows out from under buildings.
The evaluation of potential for liquefaction is complex and factors that must be considered include soil type, soil density, groundwater table, and the duration and intensity of shaking. Liquefaction is most likely to occur in deposits of water-saturated alluvium or similar deposits of artificial fill.
The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) identifies and profiles hazards, assesses the vulnerability of Sacramento County and incorporated cities, and includes mitigation capabilities to combat these risks. Within the Hazards Profile section of the LHMP, there is a subsection specifically devoted to the risks posed by Liquefaction.
According to the LHMP, Sacramento County has two areas that have been suggested as posing potential liquefaction problems - the downtown area and the Delta. Although the Delta’s levee system has never been subject to strong groundshaking, many of the levees are considered at risk of failure due to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. Those with the highest risk are levees which are built higher, in response to island subsidence, and in close proximity to neighboring fault systems, which are concentrated in the Central and Western portions of the Delta. Levee failure, depending on the extent, could result in salt water intrusion from the San Francisco Bay and could have disastrous effects on agriculture and fisheries.
A geological and seismological study in 1972 indicated that the Housing and Redevelopment Agency building site located downtown at the intersection of 7th and I Streets has a potential for liquefaction. This study also concluded that potential liquefaction problems may exist throughout the downtown area where loose sands and silts are present below the ground water table.
Level of Earthquake Hazard
These regions are near major, active faults and will on average experience stronger earthquake shaking more frequently. This intense shaking can damage even strong, modern buildings.
Increasing intensity
These regions are distant from known, active faults and will experience lower levels of shaking less frequently. In most earthquakes, only weaker, masonry buildings would be damaged. However, very infrequent earthquakes could still cause strong shaking here.
<>
Figure II-4
# Earthquake Shaking Potential in Sacramento County
Source: California Department of Conservation
Updated: 2017
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
### SUBSIDENCE
Subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of the earth's surface with little or no horizontal motion. Sacramento County is affected by five types of subsidence: liquefaction caused by earthquake shaking, compaction by heavy structures, the erosion of peat soils, peat oxidation, and fluid withdrawal. Groundwater extraction for residential, commercial and agricultural uses causes the greatest amount of subsidence in Sacramento County (Figure II-5).
Subsidence has created major problems for flood control, particularly in the Delta. As levees sink under their own weight and are weakened by the erosive force of water, expensive periodic rebuilding is necessary. According to the California Department of Water Resources, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta's peat soils are subsiding at an estimated 0.4 to 0.6 inches per year[^p17-7]. However, according to USGS estimates, developed islands in the Central and Western Delta are subsiding at 1-3 inches per year on average[^p17-8]. Many islands in the Delta that, at one time, were at or above sea level are now between 10 and 25 feet below sea level.
[^p17-7]: California Department of Water Resources, *Subsidence in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta*, July 2012. [http://www.water.ca.gov/floodsafe/fessro/subsidence.cfm#rates](http://www.water.ca.gov/floodsafe/fessro/subsidence.cfm#rates)
[^p17-8]: United States Geologic Survey, *Delta Subsidence in California*, April 2000. [https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2000/fs00500/pdf/fs00500.pdf](https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2000/fs00500/pdf/fs00500.pdf)
<>
### Figure II-5
### Potential Subsidence Areas in Sacramento County
| Areas of Potential Subsidence | |
| :--- | :--- |
| High | [ ] Groundwater Basins |
| Medium to High | |
| Low to Medium | |
| Source: California Department of Water Resources | Updated: 2017 |
EXPANSIVE SOILS
Expansive soils represent approximately one third of all soil types in Sacramento County. They are largely comprised of clays, which greatly increase in volume when water is absorbed and shrink when dried. Expansive soils are of concern because building foundations may rise during the rainy season and fall during the dry season in response to the clay's action. If movement varies under different parts of the building, the result is that foundations creak, structural portions of the building are distorted, and doors and windows are warped so that they do not function properly.
In accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act, the County Grading Ordinance, and Chapter 22 of the Sacramento County Code, soil reports are required prior to issuance of building permits in areas where the potential for expansive soils is present.
LANDSLIDES
Landslide is a general term used for a falling mass of soil and rock. In Sacramento County, only a narrow strip along the eastern boundary, from the Placer County line to the Cosumnes River, is considered to have landslide potential. However, future slides on these slopes are expected to be minor in nature and do not pose a large scale threat to life or property. The American River Bluffs downstream from Folsom and in Fair Oaks and Carmichael are considered stable and are generally not subject to fracture or landslides.
EROSION
Erosion is a natural geological process by which landforms are worn down or reshaped by wind and water and the eroded material is deposited elsewhere. While erosion occurs in Sacramento County, it does not appear to pose a significant hazard to property.
Erosion from agriculture seems to pose little problem in most of the County. The Central and Western portions of the County are fairly level and very little erosion takes place in these areas unless poor farming practices leave large areas of soil exposed and dry and subject to wind erosion.
There is a greater potential for erosion in the Eastern foothills of the County, but extensive grass cover protects most of the vulnerable soils. Also, there is little agricultural activity in this area because the soils are generally of poor quality. The grasses, therefore, remain undisturbed unless a fire or some other event exposes the soil.
Although construction activity does present a potential for erosion – specifically in instances where soils are continuously exposed – Sacramento County provides measures to limit or restrict such practices through Grading and Drainage Ordinances and any permit issued under such ordinances would not be granted for a project which might generate potentially significant erosion hazards.
#### CONCLUSION
Sacramento County is affected by seismic and geologic activity that could be disastrous to the economy and detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the community. The general lack of dramatic geologic activity in and around the County is misleading. The potential for destructive geologic and seismic hazards is a serious consideration when reviewing development plans for commercial and residential expansion. To protect life and property it is incumbent upon policy makers, developers, and planners to be knowledgeable of the earth hazards facing this County, and to remain diligent in developing a community that protects, to the best of our ability, people and property from the dangers of seismic and geologic hazards.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
SAFETY ELEMENT
# FLOODING
## TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
### INTRODUCTION
Flooding is the rising and overflowing of a body of water onto normally dry land. The initial force of flood waters can shatter structures and uplift vehicles. Floodwaters can transport large objects downstream which, in turn, can damage or remove stationary structures. Saturation can result in instability, collapse, or other damage. Objects can be buried or destroyed through sediment deposition. Floodwaters can break utility lines, interrupt services and potentially affect health and safety, particularly in the case of a broken sewer, domestic water, or gas lines. Standing water may cause septic tank failure, well contamination, and loss of crops. Roads, foundations and electrical circuits may also become damaged by standing water.
Flooding can occur due to surface flow of stormwater, ponding, overbank flood flow from ditches and creeks, or failure of flood control systems. In modern times, Sacramento County has been fortunate to not have experienced catastrophic flooding in urban areas due to levee or dam failure. However, the American and Sacramento River could pose a threat to public safety. The statistically unlikely flood event that would overwhelm dams and levees would have enormous consequences.
Sacramento County is vulnerable to riverine flooding. Riverine flooding generally occurs as a result of prolonged rainfall, or rainfall combined with snowmelt and/or already saturated soils from previous rain events. Factors that directly affect the amount of flood runoff include precipitation amount, intensity and distribution, the amount of soil moisture, seasonal variation in vegetation, snow depth, and impermeability of the surface due to urbanization. Placement and integrity of existing levees and reservoir operation for flood control are also important factors. Riverine flooding can occur anytime from November through April, and is largely caused by heavy and continued rains. Intense storms may overwhelm local waterways, as well as threaten the integrity of flood control structures.
Due to the County’s relatively flat, generally low-lying terrain and numerous waterways, flooding has historically constituted the most frequent natural hazard. Several rivers flow through the County including the Sacramento, American, and Cosumnes Rivers. The Sacramento and American Rivers, and several tributaries to the east, north, and west, flow toward the City of Sacramento. The watersheds of these two main rivers drain most of Northern California and part of Oregon for a total of approximately 20,000 square miles. The Shasta and Folsom Dams, under the jurisdiction of the US Bureau of Reclamation, manage the Sacramento and American River flows with flood control as an important feature of their operational rules.
The Cosumnes River, which is not influenced by a flood-control reservoir, flows southwesterly through the southern portion of the County into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region.
When the Sacramento River reaches its peak capacity, the American River and other tributaries that flow into the Sacramento River cannot discharge at a normal rate. These conditions result in “backflows,” which can cause tributaries to overflow and flood local areas. The reach of Sacramento River closest to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is also affected by ocean tides. High tides that occur simultaneously with high river flows could increase chances of flooding. To combat the natural tendencies for flooding in the Sacramento region, the American River and Sacramento River flood control systems have been established with dams, bypasses, and levees to control high flows and potential inundation. The construction of these control systems have greatly reduced the risks of flooding on the Sacramento River, with 20 floods accounting for State and federal disaster declarations since 1950.
There are other characteristics specific to the Sacramento, American, and Cosumnes Rivers which also contribute to the potential for Delta flooding to occur. Agricultural interests continue to farm land which contributes to subsidence in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, where the watersheds of these three rivers converge, weakening levees and leaving them vulnerable to breaching. As this land continues to subside, coupled with the potential impacts of sea-level rise, additional strain may be placed on the Delta levee system, which already experiences erosion and sloughing due to river velocity and wind-driven, wave wash. In addition, catastrophic Delta flooding from levee failure may occur as result of a seismic event.
While it is uncertain precisely how and to what extent climate change will affect flooding events in Sacramento County, it is reasonable to expect that an increase in flooding could have serious ramifications, because the area is already considerably vulnerable. More rapid and earlier snowmelt, or increased potential for high-intensity storm events, compared to historical trends, could potentially place additional strain on the components of flood control systems (e.g., levees, dams), and increase the likelihood of flooding in Sacramento County.
Sacramento County does enjoy much area of high ground and is not susceptible to flooding due to such a flood control failure.
As of 2004, nearly 30% of the County’s population lives within the 100-year floodplain, over 5,000 residences have previously been damaged by floods and the federal share of past damage to public facilities exposed to flood hazard has cost $15 million. Considering the increasing rate of development and the condition of the current flood control system, greater protection from flood hazards is needed. Prudence in planning and locational analysis in the development process is warranted. **(Updated 2011)**
Historically, Sacramento County was much more vulnerable to flooding before the dams and levees were constructed. Early residents of downtown Sacramento were forced to build on top of the original town level to avoid floods. Flood zones in Sacramento County are still extensive. Several areas of the County are subject to flooding by the overtopping of rivers and creeks, levee failures, and the failure of urban drainage systems that cannot accommodate large volumes of water during severe rainstorms.
In Sacramento County, there are two main rivers and several tributaries to the east, north, and west that all flow towards the City of Sacramento (Figure III-1). The Sacramento River delineates the western borders of the City and most of the County of Sacramento. The American River flows west through the County and City and meets the Sacramento River just north of downtown Sacramento. During winter storms, the creeks and streams swell from runoff emptying into rivers already impacted by floodwaters. The volumes of water increase and the flood control system is tested as the rivers approach the County.
<>
# Figure III-1
## Sacramento County Waterways
Addtional information may be obtained from the Sacramento County Department of Water Resources.
(Modified 2016)
### Brief History of Sacramento Area Flood Events[^p25-9] -
**December 1861:** Possibly the largest storm to hit Northern California. A levee along the American River, east of 30th Street, failed, flooding what is now known as River Park. To relieve the rising water levels, the levee at 5^th and R Streets was cut to drain the "lake" but houses were swept away in the current created during the process.
**1880, First Comprehensive Flood Control Plan:** In response to the 1878 flood, State Engineer William Hammond Hall developed an integrated, comprehensive flood control plan for the Sacramento Valley. The plan subsequently came to include a system of levees, weirs, and bypass channels to protect existing population centers.
**1917, Congress authorizes Sacramento Flood Control System:** After a series of violent floods between 1902 and 1909, the Comprehensive flood control project envisioned by Hall gained federal financial authorization in 1917.
**1944, Folsom Dam Authorized:** The Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to build a dam on the lower American River. Completed in 1956, Folsom Dam was originally designed to provide in excess of a 500-year level of flood protection.
**1951, Record Flood:** Just after ground was broken on Folsom Dam, the American River watershed experienced the first of five record storms.
**1956, Record Flood:** Though engineers had been predicting it would take a year to fill the nearly completed Folsom Lake, the second record storm filled the lake in a week and Sacramento was saved from flooding.
**1964, Record Flood:** The third record flood in less than 15 years caused engineers to re-evaluate storm frequency. They concluded the storm Folsom is designed to handle is a 120-year storm not a 500-year storm.
**1986, Record Flood:** A storm in February 1986 produced a 10 inches of rainfall in 11 days, causing the American River to dump more water into Folsom than it was designed to handle. After two days of releases at the design level, (115,000 cubic feet per second (cfs)), officials boost releases to 134,000 cfs. Folsom performance is downgraded to about a 60-year storm.
**1994, Folsom Dam Operation Improved:** Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation execute an agreement to operate Folsom Dam and Reservoir to take advantage of incidental flood control provided by upstream water and power reservoirs at French Meadows, Hellhole, and Union Valley.
**January 10, 1995, Record Rainfall:** This storm broke records in some parts of the County for its intensity, causing widespread flooding due to overtopped creeks and overwhelmed storm drain systems.
[^p25-9]: Sacramento History Journal of the Sacramento County Historical Society Volume VI No. 1,2,3 & 4 dated 2006 “Water Our History & Our Future”.
**January 2, 1997:** The heavy rains brought the Cosumnes River to record flows above designed limits for the protective levees. Twenty breaks occurred, with the largest near the town of Wilton in the southern end of the County. The surging floodwaters inundated thousands of acres of cropland and damaged at least 84 homes.
**January 22, 1997:** Localized heavy rain brought Chicken Ranch Slough out of its banks, flooding the Arden-Arcade area of the city. At least 1,000 homes and apartment buildings were flooded.
**January 26, 1997:** Heavy showers and thunderstorms moved over the metro area, re-flooding the neighborhoods surrounding Chicken Ranch Slough, which had just experienced flooding on the 22nd. The flooding was higher in this instance and caused additional damage to 500 more homes.
**Summer 1997:** The Cosumnes River levees were repaired by the County using funding from the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
**1999:** Congress Approves Significant Sacramento Flood Control Projects: Projects include enlarging outlets at Folsom Dam, raising the lowest levees on the American River, and raising levees along Morrison creek and its tributaries in South Sacramento. Construction of seepage cutoff walls and other levee improvements along Lower American River also began.
**January 23, 2000:** Persistent rains for 34 hours swelled Dry Creek over its banks in Rio Linda. Cherry Lane, 6th Street, as well as Curved Bridge Road were flooded.
**January 1, 2006:** A series of warm winter storms brought heavy rain, mudslides, flooding, and high winds to Northern California. Levee overtopping, breaching, and river flooding occurred along the Feather and Sacramento main-stem Rivers as well as along numerous smaller rivers, creeks, and streams. Several urban areas had significant street flooding. The Sacramento weir opened twenty gates, the first opening since 1997. Transportation throughout the area was difficult during the course of the storms as airports were closed due to the high winds and major road closures resulted from flooding and mudslides. Interstate 80, the main artery between Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay area, was closed near Fairfield in Solano County for several hours due to severe flooding. Additionally, Interstate 80 eastbound between Sacramento and Reno, NV, was closed for more than a day due to a massive mudslide, as were both directions of U.S. Highway 50 between Sacramento and South Lake Tahoe.
**2008:** Construction begins on Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project, with the main feature being a gated auxiliary spillway designed to allow Folsom Dam to safely control a 200-year flood.
**December 3, 2014:** Heavy rain showers and thunderstorms brought record rainfall and flooding issues to portions of the Central Valley and foothills. There were 2 berm levees which failed in Tehama County, flooding over 200 homes and damaging farms and orchards. Significant traffic delays were caused by road flooding across interior Northern California. Snow levels remained
above 7,500 feet, so snowfall was limited to higher Sierra peaks and Lassen Peak. Watt Avenue and Roseville Rd. number 1 lane flooded with 2 feet of water due to clogged drain.
**2017:** Was one of the wettest winters on record. Storms in January and February caused flood damage and multiple levee breaches along the Cosumnes River. Flooding occurred in the communities of Wilton and Point Pleasant. Additional levee breaches occurred on Lost Slough and the Mokelumne River resulting in the flooding of large tracts of agricultural land.
When the Sacramento River reaches its peak capacity, the American River and other tributaries that flow into the Sacramento River cannot flow into the Sacramento River at a normal rate. Under these conditions, "backflows" can occur, causing tributaries to overflow and flood local areas. The Sacramento River is also affected by ocean tides that periodically raise and lower the water level. High tides that occur simultaneously with flooding conditions could increase the rate of flooding.
To control flooding in Sacramento County, there is an extensive system of dams, levees, overflow weirs, drainage pumping plants, and flood control bypass channels strategically located on the Sacramento and American Rivers and various creeks. These facilities can control floodwaters by regulating the amount of water passing through a particular reach of the river. The amount of water flowing through the levee bound system can be controlled by the Folsom Dam on the American River and the reserve overflow area of the Yolo Bypass on the Sacramento River. Regular inspection and repair of the levees are undertaken by various maintaining agencies. Figure III-7 depicts the Countywide system of levees and Figure III-8 shows which levees are accredited by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as providing 1-percent-annual-chance (1:100 year) flood protection. Figure III-8 will be updated as needed and posted on the County Department of Water Resources website. The riverine flood control system is quite extensive and effective. There are many other areas of creek flooding. Figure III-2 illustrates the areas within the urban portions of Sacramento County that have been prone to flooding in the past, and Figure III-9 depicts existing and future urban development that lies within the 100 year floodplain. **(Updated 2011)** Flooding also occurs in the agricultural south County area. County Water Resources has flood hazard information available to the public on their website.
Local drainage is managed by Sacramento County, Folsom Dam is operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and there are twenty-three levee maintenance agencies. Clearly, a variety of entities have responsibility for flood protection affecting the County. Each role is well defined. The County operates a real time stream and rain gauge system, known as ALERT. Levee patrols take action when regular monitoring of weather conditions and flow releases in the American and Sacramento Rivers indicates that severe rainfall and other weather conditions have the likelihood to result in rising water levels. Prior to severe storms, the County Emergency Operations Office will open up the Regional Emergency Operations Center and begin staffing the center in preparation for a large scale emergency. The Emergency Operations Center acts as a central point of coordination and communication of activities and conditions in the field, such as road closures, and is staffed with representatives of law enforcement, fire, health care, transportation, flood control and other local, State and federal agencies involved in responding to emergencies. **(Added 2011)**
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (formerly State Reclamation Board) are required to prepare and adopt a Central Valley Flood Protection Plan by 2012. The American River Flood Control District, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), and the California-Nevada River Forecast Center (CNRFC) also provide flood protection for Sacramento County. Formed by the State Legislature in 1927, the American River Flood Control District maintains the 40 miles of levees along the American River and portions of Steelhead, Arcade, Dry and Magpie Creeks[^p28-10]. SAFCA was created by the City of Sacramento, the County of Sacramento, the County of Sutter, the American River Flood Control District and Reclamation District 1000 through a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to provide the Sacramento region with increased flood protection along the American and Sacramento Rivers[^p28-11]. **(Added 2011)**
CNRFC, a field office of the National Weather Service (NWS), is located in Sacramento. The NWS is an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the United States Department of Commerce. CNRFC assimilates hydrometeorological data, and provides river basin modeling and hydrologic forecast preparation for the California/Nevada region.[^p28-12] Additionally, there are twenty reclamation/ levee districts in Sacramento County (see list in Appendix to Safety Element). **(Added 2011)**
THE 1986 FLOOD
In February of 1986, the flood control system was taxed when storms produced record flows in both the Sacramento and the American River watersheds. During the storm, the American River was over 16 percent higher than its design capacity. The Sacramento River was at its highest stages ever recorded. Recordings taken at the I Street Bridge near downtown Sacramento showed the river to have only two feet of freeboard (the distance between the water level and the top of the levee), although the system was designed to have at least three feet of freeboard.
During the 1986 flood, fortunately, the flood control systems protecting the urban areas stood up to the flood and protected the community from a catastrophe. Nevertheless, the successive storms damaged 1,730 private homes and businesses. The storms caused close to $50 million in public and private property damage, excluding damage to roads and other infrastructure. In the northern Delta, 1,600 people were evacuated and $20 million in property damage occurred. Interstate 5, Interstate 80, State Highway 99, and numerous local roads were flooded.
Before 1986, it was believed that Sacramento's 110-mile levee system was sufficient to withstand at least a 100-year flood (a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year). The flood of February 1986 was, however, calculated to be about a 70-year flood (1.4 percent chance of occurrence in any given year).
[^p28-10]: American River Flood Control District, website: http://www.arfcd.org/who_we_are.php, accessed on May 3, 2010
[^p28-11]: SAFCA, website: http://www.safca.org/, accessed on May 3, 2010
[^p28-12]: National Weather Service California and Nevada River Forecast Center, website: http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/about_us.php, accessed on May 3, 2010
Significant federal, State, and local resources have been applied to improving the American River flood control system. The American River currently enjoys 1 in 100 year flood protection. There is a plan to further improve the flood protection to the 1 in 200 year level, required by State law, by 2025.
The Sacramento River and Natomas levee systems have a plan in place to achieve 1 in 200 year flood protection by 2025.
Studies are underway to determine how to improve flood risk reduction for the Delta legacy communities of Hood, Courtland, Locke, Walnut Grove, and Ryde.
<>
# Areas Historically Prone to Flooding
## Figure III-2
(Modified 2016)
# FLOOD POLICY
### Federal Flood Policy
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for maintaining flood insurance rate maps; the local floodplain manager is responsible for the accuracy of those maps. FEMA is also responsible for distributing the Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) which is used in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The 1 in 100 year flood protection standard was set by the National Flood Insurance Program as a ‘bright line;’ that is, those in the floodplain are to obtain flood insurance and those outside of the FEMA floodplain are not required to do so. California law requires 1 in 200 year flood protection for new development in urban areas, when there is a watershed of more than ten square miles affecting that development. The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency is making strides to achieve this level of flood protection in coming years.
Flood hazard information is available by calling or visiting the County Water Resources Department.
The National Flood Insurance Program is responsible for flood hazard mapping. Flood hazard zones are geographic areas that the FEMA has defined according to varying levels of flood risk. These zones are depicted on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or Flood Hazard Boundary Map. Each zone reflects the severity or type of flooding in the area. The following are the FEMA Flood Zone Designations for the Flood Insurance Rate Maps[^p31-13]. Sacramento County participates in the FEMA Community Rating System, and as such, flood insurance is significantly discounted. **(Updated 2011)**
**Zone A**
The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1% annual chance floodplain for requiring federal backed mortgages to purchase flood insurance; no depths or base flood elevations are shown within this zone. **(Added 2011)** The County has information to assist in determining the base flood elevation.
**Zone AE**
The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1% annual chance floodplain for requiring federal backed mortgages to purchase flood insurance. Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) are shown at selected intervals within this zone. New buildings constructed in this zone must be elevated above the base flood elevation (i.e., the 1% annual chance flood level). **(Added 2011)** The County has additional information on many of the floodplain areas, requiring higher flood elevations for new construction and substantial improvement.
[^p31-13]: USACE: USACE Sacramento District-- FEMA Flood Zone Designations, website: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/projects/civil/natomascertification/FEMAzones.htm, accessed on January 29, 2009
**Zone AH**
Areas subject to inundation by 1-percent-annual-chance shallow flooding (usually areas of ponding) where average depths are between one and three feet. Base flood elevations (BFEs) derived from detailed hydraulic analyses are shown in this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements and floodplain management standards apply.[^p32-14] **(Added 2011)**
[^p32-14]: FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/floodplain/nfipkeywords/zone_ah.shtm, accessed on June 28, 2010
### Zone A99
The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1% annual chance floodplain that will be protected by a federal flood protection system where construction has reached specified statutory milestones. No BFE or depths are shown in this zone. Mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements apply; however, no minimum building standards are required for this zone. **(Added 2011)** The County must report to FEMA annually on the progress toward finishing the flood control improvements resulting ultimately in Zone X mapping.
### Zone AR
The flood insurance rate zone used to depict areas protected from flood hazards by flood control structures such as a levee that are being restored. FEMA will consider using the AR designation for a community if the flood protection system has been deemed restorable by a federal agency in consultation with the local project sponsor; a minimum 3% annual chance level of flood protection is still provided to the community by the system and restoration of the flood protection system is scheduled to begin within a designated time period. Mandatory purchase requirements for flood insurance apply as do minimum building standards. **(Added 2011)**
### Zone X
The flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas outside the 1% annual chance floodplain; mandatory purchase requirements for flood insurance and minimum building standards do not apply to this zone. **(Added 2011)** There are vast areas of the County that are mapped shaded Zone X indicating that while protected from the 1 in 100 year flood, they are susceptible to flooding in larger, less frequent storms.
The information above is an outline, the County Floodplain Management Ordinance, Building Code, and Improvement Standards take precedence.
<>
**FLOOD ZONE DESCRIPTION**
**A** - Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding. Because detailed analyses are not performed for such areas; no depths or base flood elevations are shown within these zones.
**AE** - The base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided. AE Zones are now used on new format FIRMs instead of A1-A30 Zones.
**AH** - Areas with a 1% annual chance of shallow flooding, usually in the form of a pond, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. Base flood elevations derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected intervals within these zones.
**AO** - River or stream flood hazard areas, and areas with a 1% or greater chance of shallow flooding each year, usually in the form of sheet flow, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. Average flood depths derived from detailed analyses are shown within these zones.
**A99** - Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding that will be protected by a Federal flood control system where construction has reached specified legal requirements. No depths or base flood elevations are shown within these zones.
**X** - Areas determined to be outside the 500-year flood and protected by levees from 100-year flood.
### Figure III-3
# FEMA Flood Hazard Designations
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| AE | AH |
| A | A99 |
| AO | X |
Source: FEMA
**(Modified 2016)**
### State Department of Water Resources (DWR) Floodplain Mapping
In an effort to provide information essential to community planning needs, DWR has initiated the Awareness Floodplain Mapping Project. The intent of the Awareness Floodplain Mapping project is to identify all pertinent flood hazard areas by 2015 for areas that are not mapped under the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and to provide the community and residents an additional tool in understanding potential flood hazards currently not mapped as a regulated floodplain. The awareness maps identify the 100-year flood hazard areas using approximate assessment procedures. These floodplains will be shown simply as flood prone areas without specific depths and other flood hazard data. These maps are not FEMA regulatory floodplain maps; however, at the request of the community FEMA would include this data on their maps[^p35-15]. **(Added 2011)**
### 2007 Flood Legislation Package
Pursuant to SB 5 (Machado, 2007) and AB 162 (Wolk, 2007), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and Central Valley Flood Protection Board (formerly State Reclamation Board) are required to prepare and adopt a Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) by 2012. As a basis for the CVFPP, DWR is required to prepare new 100 and 200 year floodplain maps. Upon the adoption of the CVFPP, the standard for flood protection for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley area will increase to a 200-year level (ability to withstand a 1 in 200 chance of flooding in any given year) in urban areas. **(Added 2011)**
Upon adoption of the CVFPP, jurisdictions will have 24 months to incorporate the measures of the plan into their General Plans, and 36 months to incorporate measures into their zoning ordinances. Upon DWR’s finalization of the updated 100 and 200 year floodplain maps, they will be incorporated into the Safety Element of the General Plan. **(Added 2011)**
[^p35-15]: CA DWR: Flood Management—Awareness Floodplain Maps, website: http://www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/lrafmo/fmb/fes/awareness_floodplain_maps/, accessed on February 2, 2009
<>
# Figure III-4
## Designated Floodways
Central Valley Flood Protection Board(CVFPB) Designated Floodways
100 Year Floodplain
Source: Floodway information provided by the Central Valley Flood Protection Board 2014.
100-Year Floodplain data provided by FEMA 2014.
Additional information may be obtained from the Sacramento County Department of Water Resources.
### (Modified 2016)
<>
# Figure III-5
# State DWR Awareness Floodplain Areas
Source: Ca State DWR. DWR Awareness Floodplain areas are flood prone areas that are not mapped under the FEMA National Flood Insurance Program
DWR Awareness Floodplain
* This map will be updated with the 200-year floodplain data when it becomes available from the CA DWR.
* Visit www.water.ca.gov/floodmgmt/lrafmo/fmb/fes/awareness_floodplain_maps for more information
**(Modified 2016)**
### AMERICAN RIVER FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM
The American River Flood Control System consists of the Folsom Dam, an auxiliary Folsom Lake dam at Mormon Island, eight earth-filled dikes, and miles of levees on the north and south banks of the American River. The System receives runoff from the American River watershed which extends east into the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range to about elevation 7,000 feet (Figure III-6). The watershed area above Folsom Dam is about 1,900 square miles[^p38-16]. Immediately downstream of Folsom Dam in line in the American River, is the Nimbus Dam and Lake Natoma.
Folsom Lake is about 1 million acre-feet and Lake Natoma is only about 8,760 acre-feet. Flood control with these facilities is challenging. The Lower American River has limited capacity within the freeboard of the levee system. In 1986, about 133,000 cubic feet per second flowed from Folsom Lake causing grave concern; fortunately, the potential flood disaster was thwarted. Again, there were grave concerns in 1997, but the levees held. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed construction in 2016 of a new spillway for Folsom Lake, which, if managed in concert with weather forecasts, will control flow releases to the lower American River.
The Natomas area, not to be confused with Lake Natoma, is at the confluence of the American River and the Sacramento River and is home to tens of thousands residents, City of Sacramento limits housing the majority of those, as well as various business and industries, and the Sacramento International Airport.
The flood control plan for the American River has long included a dam at Foresthill, known as the Auburn Dam. Construction began in 1977 and was halted in 1979 due to concerns that the design might not have adequately accounted for seismic forces. Additionally, there has been, and continues to be, strong environmental opposition to further upstream storage. No further decision has been made for completion of the Auburn Dam.
[^p38-16]: Coloma-Lotus Chamber of Commerce, *American River Watershed*, 2017. [https://www.theamericanriver.com/rivers/american-river-watershed/](https://www.theamericanriver.com/rivers/american-river-watershed/)
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EIP Associates
<>
### American River Watershed
### Figure III-6
# THE SACRAMENTO RIVER FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM
The Sacramento River Flood Control System consists of the Fremont Weir, Tisdale Weir, Sacramento Weir, Yolo Bypass Channel, and levees along the Sacramento River, Lower American River, Natomas East Main Drain (NEMD), Arcade Creek, Natomas Cross Channel and the Sacramento Bypass Channels. The Corps report "Sacramento River System Evaluation, June 1988" revealed that levees on both the Sacramento and American Rivers have inadequate freeboard and/or stability problems. Much work has been accomplished and more is planned in accordance with the goal to achieve 1 in 200 year flood protection for urban areas by 2025. The Delta area is also being studied to develop strategies to reduce flood risk.
# THE NATOMAS AREA
Natomas is a desirable area for development because of its proximity to freeways and short commute to downtown Sacramento. There is a plan to achieve 1 in 200 year flood protection by 2025 in accordance with the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. A levee breach during high river flows could be catastrophic in Natomas. There are many residences and businesses in the area so it is very important to the County that efforts to reduce flood risk in Natomas continue. Natomas will enjoy much improved flood protection, in the future, when the levees are improved, Folsom Dam is operated with its new spillway, and the weirs on the Sacramento River are widened. The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency with Reclamation District 1000 are diligently pursuing efforts to achieve 1 in 200 year flood protection. In the unlikely event of a catastrophic levee breach in Natomas, the Department of Water Resources has prepared flood time and depth inundation maps as well as evacuation route maps which are available at http://www.waterresources.saccounty.net/stormready/Pages/Flood-Depth-and-Evacuation.aspx.
# THE DELTA REGION
The Delta Region lies within a floodplain and is faced with a major flooding potential because of levees that have not been maintained to federal standards (Code of Federal Regulation 44CFR65.10).
The Delta islands were created in the late 1800s for farming activities. After many years of farming, the rich organic soils have experienced subsidence, causing many of the islands to be much lower than when first reclaimed. Consequently, the levees have more pressure on them as they work to repress the floodwater. Flood hazards are not limited to the winter storm season; indeed, many of the sloughs have high water all year and tidal influences at the lower delta add hydrostatic pressures daily. Levee stability problems and the potential for seismic-caused levee failure is a continuous concern. Additionally, the vulnerability assessment prepared for the County’s Climate Action plan indicates that sea level rise will place additional hydrostatic pressures on delta levees.
<>
# Figure III-7
## Sacramento County Levee System
--- Sacramento County Levee System
100 Year Floodplain/Levee Protection Areas
Source: FEMA, State DWR and Sacramento County DWR
**(Modified 2016)**
<>
Figure III-8
### Sacramento County FEMA Levee Status
**Levees**
— Accredited
--- Non-accredited [^p43-1]
####### PAL (Provisionally Accredited Levee)
█ 100 Year Floodplain
█ Levee Protection Areas
1. Although these levees are no FEMA accredited, they do p;rovide flood protection and are maintained by various reclamation districts.
Source: FEMA, State DWR, USACE and Sacramento County DWR (Files from Michael Baker Corporation)
Updated: 2016
[^p43-1]: Although these levees are no FEMA accredited, they do p;rovide flood protection and are maintained by various reclamation districts.
<>
# Figure III-9
## Existing and Future Urban Development Within the 100 Year Floodplain
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ![symbol] | 100 Year Flood Plain |
| ![symbol] | X Protected by Levee |
| ![symbol] | Areas of New Development through 2030 |
Source: State DWR and Sacramento County DWR
**(Modified 2016)**
DAM FAILURES
Since the 1850's, hundreds of dams and reservoirs have been built in California to supply water for agriculture and domestic use, to allow for flood control, as a source of hydroelectric power, and to serve as a recreational facility. The storage capacity of these reservoirs range from a few thousand acre-feet to five million acre-feet. The water from these reservoirs eventually makes its way to the Pacific Ocean by way of several river systems. The river systems which flow through or near Sacramento County, and which may affect the population when flooding, are the Sacramento, Feather, American, Cosumnes, and the Mokelumne. There are four major and two minor dams which, if they fail, may impact the people and resources of this jurisdiction. The major dams are comprised of Shasta on the Sacramento, Oroville on the Feather, Comanche on the Mokelumne and Folsom on the American. The minor dams include Nimbus and Rancho Seco.
The State Office of Emergency Services (OES) provides local jurisdictions with hazard information based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Water Resources. Included in this information is a series of dam inundation maps for Sacramento County. Detailed inundation maps from the OES and County mapping projects are available at the Sacramento County Department of Water Resources.
Dam failure is statistically improbable, as any dam operator would do all they could to release flow via the spillway rather than uncontrollably losing the dam. Most dams have a far greater capacity to release flows than the design flow for the receiving river. Thus, a downstream levee breach from high spillway releases, while also being unlikely, is more probable than dam failure.
Folsom Dam (including the Mormon Island auxiliary dam and the lengthy earth embankment) would have the greatest impact on the population of Sacramento County should it fail. The flood waters from this system would affect the cities of Sacramento, Folsom, Rancho Cordova and Elk Grove and the surrounding unincorporated area. Figure III-10 depicts the flood area. **(Updated 2011)** In a case where the dam operator releases controlled flood flows far in excess of the design capacity of the lower American River, the County has levee breach flood emergency evacuation plans.
Nimbus Dam is a small forebay/afterbay below Folsom Dam, with a nominal volume of 8,760 acre-feet (a picturesque lake known as Lake Natoma). The Flood Operations Branch, Department of Water Resources, State of California, believes that the American River Channel will not flood unless the levees fail or there is a catastrophic release.
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) inundation map indicates that a failure of the Rancho Seco Dam would flow to the Laguna Creek Basin and stop approximately at Highway 99 near Galt.
Failure of Shasta Dam would affect populations south along the Sacramento River basin to about Knights Landing where it would lose momentum.
An Oroville Dam failure would impact populations southwest along the Feather River basin to the Natomas Basin.
A failure at Comanche Dam would affect the Delta and possibly slow the flow of other rivers through the Delta.
<>
### Figure III-10
# Folsom Dam Failure Flood Area
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| Folsom Dam failure inundation area provided by the Governor's Office of Emergency Services. | █ Folsom Dam Inundation Area |
| | ■ Major Waterways |
| | ▨ Cities |
Additional information may be obtained from the Sacramento County Department of Water Resources.
**(Modified 2016)**
<>
### Figure III-11
### 200 Year Floodplain Protected by State Project Levees
(Added 2016)
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
# SAFETY ELEMENT
## FIRE HAZARDS
### TECHNICAL DISCUSSIONS
Sacramento County is served by 13 fire protection districts (Figure IV-1). These districts range in population size from the River Delta Fire District, which serves a 2017 population of approximately 1,700persons, to the City of Sacramento, which serves approximately 480,000 persons. These districts also vary in the physical size of the area served, the type of area served (urban, rural, or a combination of both), the amount of fire equipment available, the overall operation and management capability of district personnel, and the condition of the existing water system (water supply and pressure).
The level of service provided to the area served by each fire protection district is rated by the insurance industry according to Insurance Services Office (ISO) ratings. Approximately 40 percent of the rating is based on the water system and the remaining 60 percent of the rating is based on other characteristics of the particular fire protection district. While ISO ratings focus upon the level of service afforded to commercial structures, the level of service to both commercial and residential structures are combined to establish a rating that serves as a guide for determining the fire insurance premiums for property owners within the district's boundaries. The higher the ISO rating, the lower the level of service that can be provided. Many fire protection districts covering both an urban and rural area have two ISO ratings, since many properties in the rural areas may be located over 1,000 feet away from a fire hydrant and are located over five miles from a fire station--two criteria by which ISO ratings are based.
State law requires cities and counties to address fire hazards and divides these hazards into two categories; urban and wildland fires. In Sacramento County, urban fires are those that pose a threat to urban facilities and structures including the following:
* Lumber yards;
* Petroleum tanks;
* Industrial and commercial buildings;
* Residential dwelling units; and
* Communities of a historical nature, such as Locke, where wood-frame buildings were constructed before fire codes existed or standards were imposed on buildings that about one another.
<>
# Figure IV-1
## Fire Districts and Fire Stations
1 - CITY OF FOLSOM
2 - CITY OF ISLETON
3 - CITY OF SACRAMENTO
4 - COSUMNES CSD
5 - COURTLAND
6 - DELTA
7 - HERALD
8 - NATOMAS
9 - PACIFIC FRUITRIDGE FIRE PROTECTION
10 - RIVER DELTA
11 - SAC METRO
12 - WALNUT GROVE
13 - WILTON
* FIRE STATIONS
Updated: 2017
Wildland fires are fires that pose a threat to the more rural areas of the County. Grass fires and peat fires are the two main types of wildland fires of concern in Sacramento County. Grass fires are an annual threat in the unincorporated area of the County, especially recreational areas such as the American River Parkway. Peat fires are unique to the Delta where peat is subject to spontaneous combustion. Once started, these fires become very difficult to control. Peat can still burn some distance underground even when the upper layers of peat are saturated with water over an extended period of time. Once the ground has dried out, a peat fire may return to the surface. Sacramento County has a Fire Prevention Ordinance (Sacramento County Code Title 17, Fire Prevention) which details firebreak requirements, hazardous weed removal, and enforcement. The Fire Prevention Ordinance requires a firebreak area of at least thirty feet from all structures, combustible fences, vehicles, and combustible storage. Local fire districts are given the authority to require firebreak areas exceeding thirty feet based on the existing conditions of an area. In addition, CAL FIRE maintains a webpage with guidance for homeowners regarding creating and maintaining defensible space, hardening or preparing your home, using fire-safe landscaping, and evacuation planning. The CAL FIRE defensible space webpage can be found at the following web address:
http://www.readyforwildfire.org/
While the urbanized areas do not have fire hazards associated with high levels of vegetation, the intensity and type of development play a major role in the incidence of structural fires. The California Building Code is designed to address safety measures that minimize fires and the loss of life. High quality industrial and commercial structures pose significantly less of a fire hazard than other types of structures because they are usually supplied with fire detection systems and extinguishing devices. Petroleum tanks are now required to be built with dikes surrounding the tanks to minimize the fire hazard outside the storage area.
California State law also requires that cities and counties address the risk of fire for land classified as State Responsibility Area (SRA) and land classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within their safety elements (Government Code § 65302(g)(3)). The SRA is the area in which the State is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires; it does not include lands within city boundaries or in federal ownership. Alternatively, the Local Responsibility Area is the area in which local governments or fire districts, rather than the State, are responsible for fire prevention and suppression. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection creates Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps for areas within the SRA and prepares recommended Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps for areas within the LRA for local agencies. Hazard ratings range from Moderate to Very High and are based on the physical conditions that create the likelihood that an area will burn over a 30 to 50-year period. A portion of the SRA is located within the Vineyard and Southeast communities of Sacramento County, roughly east of Grant Line Road and Clay Station Road and is served by Metro Fire, Herald Fire Protection District, and the Wilton Fire Protection District. A majority of this area is outside of the Urban Services Boundary (USB) and is designated in the Land Use Diagram as General Agricultural. The USB is a permanent growth boundary which concentrates growth and protects natural resources. Areas outside of the USB are subject to protection from development by many policies within the Land Use Element of the General Plan including but not limited to the following: LU-2, LU-76, LU-77, LU-84, and LU-127. The majority of this portion of the SRA in Sacramento County is defined as a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Similarly, a majority
of the LRA within the County is either defined as Unzoned or as a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone. However, a small portion of both the SRA and LRA within the Southeast community of the County contains a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone due to the presence of a dense eucalyptus grove. The Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is within an existing Agricultural Residential community outside of the USB and; therefore, very limited future residential development will occur there. This area is served by the Herald Fire Protection District which reviews all planning applications for compliance with current fire standards. Figure IV-2 is provided for illustrative purposes; the most up-to-date maps of the SRA, LRA, and Fire Hazard Severity Zones are maintained by CAL FIRE and can be viewed at the following web address.
https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/state-responsibility-area-viewer/
<>
## Figure IV-2
# CALFIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Sacramento County
**Local Responsibility Area**
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ![Red Square] | Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone |
| ![Grey Square] | Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone |
**State or Federal Responsibility Area**
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ![Pink Square] | Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone |
| ![Yellow Square] | Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone |
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ![Hatched Square] | Cities |
| ![Thick Outline Square] | Urban Services Boundary |
Source: CALFIRE
Updated: 2017
The Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (Metro Fire) prepared a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), dated June 2014, to identify wildfire risks, delineate a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), prescribe vegetation best management practices, and educate the public on Home Ignition Zones. In conjunction with the CWPP, Metro Fire developed a Residential Wildfire Risk Assessment tool for community members to receive site-specific information on how to improve wildfire resistance. Metro Fire has received approval of the CWPP from their Board of Directors. Eventually, following community outreach, the CWPP will go before the Board of Supervisors for official adoption. The CWPP and the Residential Wildfire Risk Assessment tool can be viewed at the following web addresses:
https://metrofire.ca.gov/community-wildfire-protection-plan
The Amador-El Dorado Unit of CAL FIRE prepares a Unit Strategic Fire Plan annually. The Unit Strategic Fire Plan (Unit Plan) includes an overview of the Amador-El Dorado Unit, a list of communities at risk, and information on pre-fire management strategies. According to the Unit Plan, Sacramento County contains 119,248 acres of land that CAL FIRE is responsible for; this area is divided into CAL FIRE Battalion 1 and Battalion 4. The Unit Plan can be viewed at the following web address:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-plan/
The LHMP identifies and profiles hazards, assesses the vulnerability of Sacramento County (including the incorporated cities) to these hazards, and includes mitigation capabilities to combat these risks. The Hazard Profile section of the LHMP contains a Wildfire subsection which details historical data on wildfire events in the County dating back to 1950. The Vulnerability Assessment section of the LHMP contains a Wildfire Vulnerability Assessment subsection which discusses the communities, assets, population, critical facilities, and future development which are at risk from wildfires. According to the updated LHMP, there has been an increase in vulnerability to wildfires due to drought conditions, increased tree mortality, increased development in WUI areas, and an overall increase in wildfire conditions since adoption of the previous LHMP. The LHMP outlines the current mitigation capability of County policies and programs and includes additional mitigation actions that will be taken to mitigate the risk of wildfire faced by the County.
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK
SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
SAFETY ELEMENT
# EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
## TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
The Sacramento County Office of Emergency Services (SAC OES) is responsible for emergency preparedness within Sacramento County including both the unincorporated area and its incorporated cities – known as the Sacramento Operational Area. In a state of war or emergency, the Sacramento Operational Area serves as a link between the State’s emergency operating centers and those of the political subdivisions that make up the Sacramento Operational Area.
SAC OES coordinates with local, State, federal, private and non-profit entities, as well as community groups to minimize the impact of all potential hazards facing the County of Sacramento. SAC OES is responsible for comprehensive disaster planning, hazard identification & risk assessment, hazard mitigation, protection of critical infrastructure, and enhancement of community preparedness. SAC OES manages the response and recovery efforts of the County and the region at the County’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The primary role of the EOC is the facilitation of interagency coordination and information sharing, management of resources and resource requests, and provision of emergency public information and warnings.
In addition to the role of coordination in the event of an emergency, SAC OES is responsible for collecting and maintaining several emergency response and planning documents including the Sacramento County Emergency Operations Plan, Sacramento County Evacuation Plan, and the Multi-Year Training and Exercise Plans. These documents can be found at the following address:
http://www.sacramentoready.org/Respond/Pages/Evacuation-Plans.aspx
Flood, drought, earthquake, and severe weather are just a few of the hazards to Sacramento communities. While natural hazards such as these cannot be prevented, a Hazard Mitigation Plan forms the foundation for a community's long-term strategy to reduce disaster losses by breaking the repeated cycle of disaster damage and reconstruction. The County, in partnership with its incorporated cities and several special districts maintains a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP). Communities with a FEMA-approved LHMP are eligible for FEMA pre- and post-disaster grant funding and for lower costs of flood insurance to residents through the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS).
In 2006, the state adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 2140 which added provisions specifying what is to be included in an LHMP and requiring a linkage between a local jurisdiction’s LHMP and the Safety Element of their General Plan. AB 2140 requires a jurisdiction to adopt the LHMP into the Safety Element of the General Plan in order to be fully eligible for disaster relief funding under the California Disaster Assistance Act.
The County of Sacramento has a current LHMP which includes an assessment of the County’s risk and vulnerability related to natural and other identified hazards and a comprehensive
mitigation strategy which includes actions and projects designed to mitigate or reduce the impacts of those hazards and to increase community resiliency.
To further meet the requirements of AB 2140, the County of Sacramento has adopted and incorporated by reference the most current LHMP as part of the Safety Element to the General Plan which should be consulted when addressing known hazards to ensure the general health and safety of people within the County. The most recent plan can be found at the following link:
https://waterresources.saccounty.net/Pages/Drainage---Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan.aspx
A recent rise in the generation, use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials by local businesses has prompted increased attention to the potential effects on the public’s health and safety. Hazardous material emergencies may be the result of threatened releases, highway accidents, clandestine drug laboratories, train derailments, pipeline transportation accidents, fire and/or spills at fixed facilities, or the result of a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) incident. The Sacramento County Environmental Management Department (EMD), maintains the Area Plan for Emergency Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents in Sacramento County. The Area Plan describes the responsibilities of local, State, and federal agencies during incidents involving the release and/or threatened release of hazardous materials.
Land use decisions can greatly affect the implementation of emergency response and evacuation plans in a major disaster. Road networks which have been poorly planned, do not have regular maintenance, or are not designed to accommodate population densities and growth, can severely hinder the ability of emergency response personnel from delivering supplies into an area or move people out in a timely manner. Additionally, evacuation difficulties and loss of life and property are increased when high density developments or other sensitive land uses are allowed near facilities where major disasters are more likely to occur, such as tank farms, airports, deep floodplains, or railyards. An adequate circulation network and careful land use planning, which balances the potential for disaster with economic development equally, are key to saving lives and minimizing property damage.
---
## Environmental Justice — Environmental Justice
- Source: https://landuse.saccounty.gov/archive/GPPD/GP_BackgroundReport_EJ.pdf
- Pages: 57
- Covers: ej
<>
# SACRAMENTO COUNTY
# ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT - Research Document
<>
<>
<>
Sacramento County
Office of Planning & Environmental Review
<>
# INTRODUCTION
During the preparation of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Justice (EJ) Elements, staff from the Office of Planning and Environmental Review (PER) collected baseline data on each of the Environmental Justice Communities (EJ Communities) to determine existing community conditions. This research enabled staff to identify EJ-related community issues, particularly those issues that are the result of inequities between EJ Communities and non-EJ areas. This research also enabled staff to prepare an initial list of policies and implementation measures for the Phase 2 EJ Element. This list was later modified in response to comments received during the EJ Element’s public engagement process.
The following sections show the baseline data that PER staff collected for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 EJ Elements. The sections are organized by EJ topic.
# TABLE OF CONTENTS
### Introduction........................................................................................................... 1
### Table of Contents ................................................................................................ 2
### SECTION 1: REDUCE POLLUTION EXPOSURE................................................ 6
Water Contamination ................................................................................................. 6
Soil Contamination...................................................................................................... 8
Hazardous Waste ....................................................................................................... 9
Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 10
### SECTION 2: PROMOTE PUBLIC FACILITIES.................................................. 16
Existing Facilities and Community Amenities............................................................ 16
### SECTION 3: HEALTHY FOOD ACCESS ........................................................... 20
Access To Grocery Stores ........................................................................................ 20
Access To Fast Food ................................................................................................ 23
Food Insecurity ......................................................................................................... 24
### SECTION 4: SAFE AND SANITARY HOMES.................................................... 25
Inadequate Maintenance........................................................................................... 25
Housing Overcrowding.............................................................................................. 27
Housing Cost-Burdened............................................................................................ 27
### SECTION 5: PHYSICAL ACTIVITY ................................................................... 29
Pedestrian Network................................................................................................... 29
ADA Standards ......................................................................................................... 32
Amenities (lighting, shading, benches, trash, etc)..................................................... 33
Bicycle Network ........................................................................................................ 36
Provisions of Parks ................................................................................................... 40
Physical Activity Levels ............................................................................................. 44
Active Transportation Users...................................................................................... 45
### SECTION 6: CRIME PREVENTION ........................................................... 47
Crime Hotspots........................................................................................... 47
Violent Crime and Property Crime Rates.................................................... 48
Convenience Stores and Liquor Stores ..................................................... 49
### SECTION 7: CIVIL ENGAGEMENT ........................................................... 51
Community Demographic Characteristics that Affect Civil
Engagement ............................................................................................... 51
Linguistic Isolation ...................................................................................... 51
Lack of Neighborhood and Community Organizations ............................... 52
Highest Education Levels ........................................................................... 52
### REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 54
### LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Average Person’s Job Accessibility (2012)........................................ 15
Table 2: Average Person’s Job Accessibility (2036)........................................ 15
Table 3: Percentage of Dwelling Units within ½ Mile of Grocery Store
...................................................................................................................... 20
Table 4: Percent of Unit within ¼ Mile of Fast Food ........................................ 23
Table 5: Percent of Schools within ¼ Mile of Fast Food ................................... 23
Figure 16: Percentage Housing Cost Burdened Household (2009-2013
...................................................................................................................... 28
Table 6: Violent Crime Rates per 1,000 Residents.......................................... 49
Table 7: Property Crime Rates per 1,000 Residents ....................................... 49
Table 8: Highest Educational Level ................................................................. 53
### LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Groundwater Threat Sites ................................................................. 7
Figure 2: Drinking Water Contamination........................................................... 8
Figure 3: Solid Waste Sites (December 2016) ............................................... 9
Figure 4: Hazardous Waste Sites (2012-2014) ............................................ 10
Figure 5: Asthma Emergency Room Visits (2011-2013) ............................ 11
Figure 6: Diesel Particulate Matter (July 2012) ........................................... 13
Figure 7: Pesticides per Square Mile (2012-2014) ...................................... 14
Figure 8: Community Facilities in North Vineyard ....................................... 17
Figure 9: Community Facilities in North Highlands/Foothill Farms and
West Arden-Arcade...................................................................................... 18
Figure 10: Community Facilities in South Sacramento................................. 19
Figure 11: North Highlands/Foothill Farms and West Arden-Arcade –
EJ Communities Food Access ..................................................................... 21
Figure 12: South Sacramento EJ Community Food Access ....................... 22
Figure 13: Food Insecurity Rates ................................................................. 24
Figure 14: Census Tracts in EJ Communities with Potentially Large
Number of Houses Needing Maintenance ................................................... 26
Figure 15: Percent Overcrowded Households (2012-2016) ........................ 27
Figure 16: Percentage Housing Cost Burdened Household (2009-
2013) ............................................................................................................ 28
Figure 17: South Sacramento Priority Sidewalk Areas................................. 29
Figure 18: North Vineyard Priority Sidewalk Areas ...................................... 30
Figure 19: West Arden-Arcade and North Highlands/Foothill Farms
Priority Sidewalk Areas ................................................................................ 31
Figures 20, 21 and 22: ADA Ramp Locations ............................................. 32
Figure 23: ADA Ramps per 1,000 Dwelling Units........................................ 33
Figure 24: Average Canopy Coverage.......................................................... 34
Figure 25: Canopy Map................................................................................. 35
Figure 26: Class I Bike Trails per 1,000 Residences................................... 36
Figure 27: Class II Bike Trails per 1,000 Residences.................................. 37
Supporting Research for Sacramento County Environmental Justice Element
Figure 28: Bike and Pedestrian Collisions in North Highlands/Foothill Farms and West Arden-Arcade ........................................................... 38
Figure 29: Bike and Pedestrian Collisions in South Sacramento and North Vineyard ..................................................................................... 39
Figure 30: Bike and Pedestrian Collisions Occurrences per 1,000 Dwelling Units (2004-2014) .................................................................... 40
Figure 31: Percentage of Residences within ¼ Mile of a Park............. 41
Figure 32: Park Access in North Highlands and West Arden-Arcade . 42
Figure 33: Park Access in South Sacramento ..................................... 43
Figure 34: Park Acres per 1,000 Dwelling Units ................................... 44
Figure 35: Average Percentage of Obese Individuals ......................... 45
Figure 36: Average Percentage of People Who Walk to Work (By Census Tract) ........................................................................................ 46
Figure 37: Average Percentage of People Who Bike to Work (By Census Tract) ........................................................................................ 46
Figures 38, 39 and 40: Robbery Hot Spots........................................... 47
Figure 41: Convenience Stores and Liquor Stores per 1,000 Dwelling Units ..................................................................................................... 50
Figure 42: Percent Limited English Speaking Households (2011-2015) ............................................................................................................. 52
# SECTION 1: REDUCE POLLUTION EXPOSURE
Staff used CalEnviroscreen 3.0 (CalEnviroscreen) to compile much of the data in this section and in the following sections. Data in CalEnviroscreen is aggregated to the census tract level and thus, staff used the average score (value) of all census tracts in an EJ Community (weighted by population) to determine the overall score for an EJ Community. Staff also used this method to attain scores for non-EJ areas. Scores of EJ Communities were then compared with those of non-EJ areas.
### WATER CONTAMINATION
#### Groundwater Threats
Public water systems that rely on groundwater serve many areas in Sacramento County. However, sources such as industrial operations, leaking underground storage tanks, irrigated agricultural land and confined animal feeding operations can potentially contaminate groundwater basins.
In determining groundwater threats, CalEnviroscreen uses data from GeoTracker, a State Water Resources Control Board database that identifies sites that impact or potentially impact water quality. CalEnviroscreen assigns a score to each cleanup site, applies a weight to the site based on the type and then adjusts the score based on the site's distance from urban areas. Each census tract was scored based on the sum of the adjusted scores of cleanup sites that are within the census tract.
The North Highlands/Foothill Farms EJ Community had the highest score for groundwater threats (Figure 1: Groundwater Threat SitesFigure 1) among EJ Communities and non-EJ areas. The large number of military cleanup sites at the former McClellan Air Force Base (an Environmental Protection Agency Superfund site) contributes to the high score. There are 326 areas of known and suspected contamination at McClellan but many of the identified sites have completed remediation or are in the process of remediation. The North Vineyard EJ Community score is misleading because this score is based on a geographic area (census tract) that does not match the EJ Community’s boundaries. Many of the groundwater threat sites in the census tract are in the City of Sacramento (within or near the former Sacramento Army Depot). The South Sacramento EJ Community and the West Arden-Arcade EJ Community have cleanup sites. Some of these contributed to relatively high groundwater threat scores for particular census tracts within these EJ communities.
### Figure 1: Groundwater Threat Sites (2016)
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms
Source: CalEnviroscreen, 2017
### Drinking Water Contamination
Residents in unincorporated Sacramento County receive their drinking water from a wide variety of sources and distribution systems. However, the quality of that drinking water could vary based on where a person lives in the County. Location, water source, treatment method and the water district’s ability to remove contaminants all impact drinking water quality.
Drinking water contamination is a threat to public health because it can potentially result in widespread exposures. There are many ways that contaminants can be introduced into the water system, including natural occurrences, accidents, industrial releases, and agricultural runoff (CalEPA, 2017). Low income and rural communities can be disproportionately exposed to drinking water contaminants such as nitrate from fertilizer or animal waste, pesticides, perchlorate, and arsenic.
CalEnviroscreen assigns a drinking water contamination index score to a census tract based on existing contaminant concentration levels and the presence of multiple contaminants. However, the index scores do not indicate whether water is safe to drink within a census tract (CalEPA, 2017). According to the CalEnviroscreen 3.0 Report, California water systems have a high rate of compliance with drinking water standards (CalEPA, 2017). The State Water Resources Control Board reported that in 2014, water systems serving only about 2.9 percent of California’s population were in violation of one or more drinking water standards (SWRCB, 2016). However, a census tract may include many different public drinking water sources and thus, the assigned index score for a census tract may not reflect water quality existing in different portions of the census tract.
Drinking water contamination scores are shown in Figure 2. Each of the EJ Communities have a higher score than non-EJ areas.
### Figure 2: Drinking Water Contamination (2005-2013)
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms
Source: CalEnviroscreen, 2017
Between 2012 and 2017, the State Water Resources Control Board cited eight water providers in unincorporated Sacramento County for violating the California Safe Drinking Water Act. Most of these were small water systems located in the Sacramento Delta. One of the remaining water providers was in the South Sacramento EJ Community while the others were in non-EJ areas. The water provider within the South Sacramento EJ Community serves approximately 7,600 residents, which is 11 percent of all residents in the South Sacramento EJ Community. Thus, unsafe drinking water is not a widespread issue within EJ Communities.
### SOIL CONTAMINATION
#### Solid Waste
To determine solid waste site scores for census tracts, CalEnviroscreen uses CalRecycle data on landfills and other solid waste disposal facilities. The indicator applies a weighted score to each facility based on type, amount of processed waste and existing violations. Facility scores were then aggregated to the census tract level.
As compared to other EJ Communities and non-EJ areas, the North Vineyard EJ Community had a much higher indicator score (46.75). North Highlands/Foothill Farms had the second highest score at approximately 0.83. This disproportionality is caused by the presence of numerous solid waste facilities within or near North Vineyard with a corresponding scarcity of such facilities in the other areas. Due to the enormity of its score, the North Vineyard EJ Community is not included in Figure 3.
### Figure 3: Solid Waste Sites (December 2016)
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms
Source: CalEnviroscreen, 2017
### HAZARDOUS WASTE
To determine hazardous waste scores for census tracts, CalEnviroscreen uses data from the State Department of Toxic Substances Control. Individual hazardous waste sites were assigned scores based on their type and permit status. The scores were then aggregated to the census tract level.
In comparison to other EJ Communities and non-EJ areas, the North Vineyard EJ Community had the highest hazardous waste site score (7.59). The existence of a large number of solid waste sites within West Vineyard contributes to the high score. Due to the enormity of its score in comparison to the other areas, North Vineyard is not shown in Figure 4.
The Sacramento County General Plan Hazardous Materials Element contains several existing policies and implementation measures that are applicable to Sacramento County’s land use decisions and ongoing efforts by State and federal agencies to remediate hazardous waste contamination. No additional policies are needed.
### Figure 4: Hazardous Waste Sites (2012-2014)
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms
Source: CalEnviroscreen, 2017
### AIR QUALITY
The three main categories of air pollutants include Criteria Air Pollutants, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). Criteria Air Pollutants include ozone and ozone precursors (hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). TACs are air pollutants that can cause serious health effects from exposure at extremely low levels; these include benzene, asbestos, inorganic arsenic, chloroform, and particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines and many more that can be found within the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification list (https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm) from the California Air Resources Board. GHGs include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor.
Sacramento County lies within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). The geography and weather patterns of the SVAB are conducive to high air pollution levels. The mountain ranges surrounding the valley are natural air current barriers, which restrict most of the circulating winds of lower elevations from mixing and dispersing air pollutants of the valley. Sacramento is also subject to thermal air inversions, especially during the summer and fall months, wherein a layer of cool air is overlain by warmer air. In addition, solar radiation from the abundant sunshine in Sacramento acts as a catalyst to drive chemical reactions between atmospheric pollutants such as reactive hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides; the result is photochemical smog. Thus, the combination of these factors makes the Sacramento area especially susceptible to high levels of air pollution.
EJ Communities are disproportionately exposed to air pollution due to the prevalence of industrial land uses, pesticide application on agricultural land uses and high traffic volume roadways.
### Asthma
Exposure to high levels of traffic and air pollutants such as particulate matter, ozone, and diesel exhaust can result in higher rates of asthma onset and asthma aggravation. It has been documented that air pollution is an asthma trigger for some asthmatics. People who live, work or go to school near major roads have an increased incidence and severity of health problems in addition to asthma such as cardiovascular disease, impaired lung development in children, childhood leukemia, and premature death. Sensitive receptors such as children, older adults, and those with preexisting medical conditions are especially impacted.
According to Figure 5, the average number of asthma related emergency department visits per 10,000 people is much higher in the North Highlands/Foothill Farms, South Sacramento and West Arden-Arcade EJ Communities than they are in the North Vineyard EJ Community and non-EJ areas. In fact, the rate of asthma emergency visits for three of the four EJ Communities are among the worst in the state. The rates for the North Highlands/Foothill Farms and South Sacramento EJ Communities are among the highest 10 percent in the state. The rate for West Arden-Arcade is among the highest 20 percent.
The higher prevalence of asthma-related emergency room visits in the three EJ Communities could be due to their proximity to high volume roadways. The North Highlands/Foothill Farms and West Arden-Arcade EJ Communities contain Interstate 80 while the South Sacramento EJ Community contains State Highway 99. West Arden-Arcade is also bounded on the east by Watt Avenue which has a very high volume of traffic compared to other thoroughfares in the County. With the presence of high volume roadways within their boundaries, many census tracts in the North Highlands/Foothill Farms, South Sacramento and West Arden-Arcade EJ Communities score in the top third tier in the state for traffic density (vehicle km/hr divided by total road length).
#### Figure 5: Asthma Emergency Room Visits (2011-2013)
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms.
Source: CalEnviroscreen, 2017
### Ozone
Ozone is a form of oxygen that is extremely reactive. We are protected from the sun’s ultraviolet rays by ozone in the upper atmosphere. However, because of its highly reactive nature, ozone is the primary component of smog in the lower atmosphere. Smog is created when ozone reacts with other air pollutants in the presence of sunlight. Ozone levels usually vary during the day with the highest levels in the afternoon and on hot days.
With ozone pollution, breathing becomes restricted when the muscles in the lung airways become constricted and air in the alveoli is trapped. The physical response of this condition is wheezing and shortness of breath. Long-term exposure to ozone pollution could result in worsening of asthma symptoms and could potentially cause asthma. Long-term exposure to high concentrations of ozone pollution can result in permanent lung damage, such as abnormal lung development in children and decreased lung function (EPA, 2018).
According to the American Lung Association’s State of the Air 2018 report, Sacramento County during 2014 to 2016 was the 14[^th] most ozone-polluted county in the nation with 31.8 unhealthy zone days. The level of ozone pollution in the County is not greater in EJ Communities than in non-EJ areas but generally increases with elevation when pollution from urbanized areas in lower elevations travel to the foothills and become trapped.
### Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) is emitted by diesel engines and is comprised of very small particles, or “soot” coated with numerous organic compounds (California Air Resources Board). Both on-road and off-road sources such as trucks, buses, cars, ships, and locomotive engines emit diesel particulate matter. The concentration of these sources near ports, rail yards and freeways, results in these areas having high levels of diesel PM. Exposure to diesel PM has numerous adverse health effects which includes irritation to the eyes, throat and nose, cardiovascular and pulmonary disease, and lung cancer. Diesel engine emissions are responsible for about 70 percent of California’s estimated known cancer risk associated with toxic air contaminants (California Air Resources Board).
As shown in Figure 6, EJ Communities with the exception of North Vineyard have higher levels of diesel PM than non-EJ areas. Freeways with their high traffic volumes are a major source of diesel particulates in EJ Communities. Interstate 80 extends through the North Highlands/Foothill Farms EJ Community and is adjacent to the West Arden-Arcade EJ Community. State Highway 99 extends through the South Sacramento EJ Community. Extensive segments of these freeways are adjacent to residential areas.
Figure 6 also shows the South Sacramento EJ Community having the highest level of diesel PM. Besides Highway 99, another likely contributor of diesel PM in South Sacramento is truck traffic caused by industrial businesses within the community. Many of these businesses are adjacent to residential neighborhoods. This results in operating trucks in industrial areas reducing the air quality of adjacent residential neighborhoods. Trucks traveling to and from industrial areas can also reduce air quality of neighborhoods that are adjacent to truck routes.
### Figure 6: Diesel Particulate Matter (July 2012)
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Od Foothill Farms
Source: CalEnviroscreen, 2017
### Pesticides
A significant portion of Sacramento County consists of agricultural areas. Pesticides applied in agricultural areas can drift into neighboring communities and cause illness and, in some cases, longer-term health conditions such as birth defects or cancer. The Agricultural Resources Element of the General Plan contains several policies that require buffers between agricultural land uses and incompatible land uses to prevent undue exposure and to protect farmland from urban encroachment. However, encroachment of urban development into agricultural areas often results in the placement of conflicting land uses adjacent to each other.
CalEnviroScreen uses records from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation to determine pesticide scores for census tracts. A pesticide score for a census tract is determined by dividing the number of pounds per square mile of select active ingredients in pesticides during 2012-2014 by the area of the census tract.
In comparison to other EJ Communities and non-EJ areas, the South Sacramento EJ Community had the highest pesticide score (Figure 7). This was unexpected because South Sacramento has a limited amount of agriculturally zoned land. The North Vineyard EJ Community, which does have a large amount of agricultural land, had the second highest score. North Highlands/Foothill Farms and West Arden-Arcade has no agricultural lands.
### Figure 7: Pesticides per Square Mile (2012-2014)
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms
Source: CalEnviroscreen, 2017
### **Job Access by Car and Transit**
The Sacramento Area Council of Government (SACOG) has an Equity and Choice Chapter in its 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). This chapter contains an assessment of job accessibility from Low Income/High Minority areas in both the 2012 base year and the 2036 project year. Using their travel model, SACOG determines the amount of jobs (total and medical) that the average person within each EJ Community could travel to within a 30-minute drive or a 45-minute transit ride. The MTP/SCS anticipates an expanded transit network in 2036, which will increase accessibility to jobs by transit.
In comparison to other EJ Communities and non-EJ areas, the West Arden-Arcade EJ Community has the highest number of jobs accessible to community residents (Table 1 and Table 2). This is due to West Arden-Arcade’s proximity to downtown Sacramento. Improved transit (as well as improved bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure) will reduce the number of people who commute by single occupancy vehicles, which could, reduce pollutants associated with a high volume of traffic such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, benzene, and carbon monoxide.
### Table 1: Average Person’s Job Accessibility (2012)
| | Total Jobs | | Medical Jobs | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Area | 30 Minutes Driving | 45 Minutes Transit | 30 Minutes Driving | 45 Minutes Transit |
| West Arden Arcade | 667,349 | 54,053 | 77,905 | 9,730 |
| North Highlands/Foothill Farms | 569,585 | 12,556 | 68,135 | 1,191 |
| North Vineyard | 533,242 | 0 | 63,400 | 0 |
| South Sacramento | 525,251 | 15,899 | 61,137 | 3,235 |
| Combined EJ Area | 572,751 | 23,211 | 67,367 | 3,963 |
| Non-EJ Areas | 537,454 | 21,149 | 64,289 | 3,889 |
Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 2016
### Table 2: Average Person’s Job Accessibility (2036)
| | Total Jobs | | Medical Jobs | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Area | 30 Minutes Driving | 45 Minutes Transit | 30 Minutes Driving | 45 Minutes Transit |
| West Arden Arcade | 978,970 | 139,112 | 114,869 | 21,259 |
| North Highlands/Foothill Farms | 780,072 | 29,833 | 92,711 | 3,449 |
| North Vineyard | 772,076 | 10,966 | 87,566 | 441 |
| South Sacramento | 734,132 | 42,894 | 83,158 | 8,399 |
| Combined EJ Area | 803,419 | 56,097 | 93,295 | 8,807 |
| Non-EJ Areas | 745,906 | 47,295 | 88,832 | 8,149 |
Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 2016
# SECTION 2: PROMOTE PUBLIC FACILITIES
### EXISTING FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY AMENITIES
Many public services are provided by special districts that are not directly accountable to the County of Sacramento. Therefore, it is important to focus this section on the aspects of public facilities that the County does control. For example, the County can guide the siting of new public facilities in new growth areas. The operation and maintenance of existing facilities, however, is usually under the purview of the relevant special district or County agency responsible for those types of facilities.
Staff assessed existing public facilities in EJ communities. This assessment focused on facilities that act as community amenities or sites of emergency service providers. Staff mapped these facilities as well as residential areas in each EJ community (Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10). The Physical Activity section covers parks and pedestrian/bicycle facilities.
#### Public Schools
In Sacramento County, there are 14 school districts serving approximately 244,394 students. Each school district is independently governed and operated. These school districts are responsible for the operation of 413 public schools ranging from pre-kindergarten to post-secondary education. Seven school districts serve the County’s EJ Communities. There are two high schools in the North Highland/Foothill Farms EJ Community and one high school each in the West Arden-Arcade and South Sacramento EJ Communities. Due to its higher population, South Sacramento should have more than one high school but many students within this EJ Community attend high schools that are within the City of Sacramento. Elementary schools are generally well distributed throughout the EJ Communities (except for North Vineyard) but it appears that some neighborhoods (particularly in South Sacramento) are lacking an elementary school.
#### Public Libraries
Libraries are also a critical public service and a signature of a healthy community that define quality of life for the businesses, families and individuals that live in the community. In Sacramento County, 28 library facilities are managed by the Sacramento Public Library Authority, a joint powers authority consisting of representatives from the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County. Public libraries provide free access to reading material, homework zones (tutoring services offered), adult learning (adult literacy assistance and GED services), makerspace (creating music, virtual and real-world designs, etc.) and other items for check out from crafting machines to yard equipment.
The Arcade Public Library is within the West Arden-Arcade EJ Community. There is no public library in the North Highlands/Foothill Farms EJ Community but the North Highlands/Antelope Library is adjacent to the community’s northern boundary. However, due to its location, residents who live in the southern half of the EJ Community may have difficulty accessing this library. Three libraries serve the South Sacramento EJ Community. The Colonial Heights Library serves residents in the northern portion of the EJ Community, the Southgate Library serves residents in the central portion, and the Valley Hi - North Laguna Library (not shown in Figure 10) serves residents in the southern portion.
#### Emergency Facilities
Emergency facilities such as sheriff and fire stations are also shown in the Community Amenities Maps. Sheriff’s stations act as local hubs for the County’s Sheriff Department in the community. While the Sheriff’s Department provides specialized law
enforcement services to the whole County, it acts as a local police force in the unincorporated areas. Fire stations are under the control of whatever fire district is responsible for that area. Fire districts provide emergency medical rescue and fire protection services in their jurisdiction. Like park districts, fire districts can either function as independent or dependent districts. All fire districts in the County, other than the Natomas Fire District, operate as independent districts.
Each of the EJ Communities (with the exception of North Vineyard) has at least one Sheriff's station within or near its boundaries. North Highlands/Foothill Farms has a station serving the North Highlands portion of the community while another station that is adjacent to the community's eastern boundary serves the Foothill Farms portion. West Arden-Arcade and South Sacramento EJ Communities each have one centrally located Sheriff's station. The northern portion of the South Sacramento EJ Community is near a City Police Station (not shown on Figure 10).
The Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (Sacramento Metro Fire) serves all of the North Highlands/Foothill Farms, North Vineyard and West Arden-Arcade EJ Communities and the southern half of the South Sacramento EJ Community. The Sacramento City Fire Department (City Fire) serves the northern half of the South Sacramento EJ Community. The service areas for both Sacramento Metro Fire and City Fire are divided into districts based on response times from a fire station.
### Figure 8: Community Facilities in North Vineyard
<>
### Figure 9: Community Facilities in North Highlands/Foothill Farms and West Arden-Arcade
<>
Source of Data: Sacramento County GIS, 2017
# Figure 10: Community Facilities in South Sacramento
<>
# SECTION 3: HEALTHY FOOD ACCESS
### ACCESS TO GROCERY STORES
The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) collects data on the location of grocery stores in the County. According to the data, there is a much higher percentage of dwelling units located within a half a mile of a grocery store within EJ Communities (except for North Vineyard) than within non-EJ areas (Table 3). This trend is especially notable in the South Sacramento EJ Community where there are a large number of small ethnic markets. North Vineyard is a rural area that currently has no grocery stores.
#### Table 3: Percentage of Dwelling Units within ½ Mile of Grocery Store
| | Number of Units | Number of Units within 1/2 mile of Grocery Store | Percentage of Units within 1/2 Mile of Grocery Store |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| North Vineyard | 1,548 | 0 | 0% |
| North Highlands/Foothill Farms | 25,456 | 15,965 | 63% |
| West Arden-Arcade | 20,464 | 10,838 | 53% |
| South Sacramento | 28,807 | 17,309 | 60% |
| Non-EJ Areas | 130,477 | 39,836 | 31% |
Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 2017
### Figure 11: North Highlands/Foothill Farms and West Arden-Arcade – EJ Communities Food Access
<>
### Figure 12: South Sacramento EJ Community Food Access
<>
### ACCESS TO FAST FOOD
Studies are mixed on whether having easy access to fast food leads to higher obesity and diabetes rates. There is no clear connection between adult obesity and access to fast food restaurants (Jeffery et al., 2006). Because people have cars and thus have a wide variety of food sources to choose from, they may choose a healthy food option even though this option may be farther away than a fast food restaurant. However, studies have shown that having fast restaurants near schools particularly in disadvantaged areas can lead to higher obesity rates among school children (Davis and Carpenter, 2009; Turbutt et al., 2019). Because they lack access to a car, schoolchildren have fewer options to choose from and thus are more of a "captive audience" for fast food restaurants.
Table 4 shows the number and percentage of dwelling units within a quarter mile of a fast food restaurant in EJ Communities and non-EJ areas. The table shows that a large percentage of dwelling units (40 percent) within North Highlands/Foothill Farms and West Arden Arcade are within walking distance of a fast food restaurant as compared to the percentage of units within non-EJ areas (19 percent). Table 5 is similar to Table 4 but it shows the number and percentage of schools within a quarter mile of a fast food restaurant. In West Arden-Arcade and North Highlands/Foothill Farms, 50 percent and 40 percent of the schools are within a quarter mile of a fast food restaurant. These percentages are more than twice that in non-EJ areas.
**Table 4: Percent of Unit within ¼ Mile of Fast Food**
| Geographic Area | Total Units | Units Within ¼ Mile Fast Food | Percentage of Units within ¼ Mile Fast Food |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| North Highlands | 25456 | 10210 | 40% |
| North Vineyard | 1548 | 2 | 0.13% |
| West Arden-Arcade | 20464 | 8273 | 40% |
| South Sacramento | 28807 | 6326 | 22% |
| Non-EJ Areas | 120990 | 23489 | 19% |
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms
Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 2017
**Table 5: Percent of Schools within ¼ Mile of Fast Food**
| Geographic Area | Number of Schools within ¼ mile of Fast Food | Number of Schools | Percentage of Schools within ¼ mile of Fast Food |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| North Highlands | 12 | 31 | 40% |
| North Vineyard | 0 | 1 | 0% |
| South Sacramento | 0 | 18 | 0% |
| West Arden-Arcade | 6 | 12 | 50% |
| Non EJ Areas | 22 | 115 | 19% |
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms
Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 2017
## FOOD INSECURITY
Though access to grocery stores in EJ Communities is generally higher than in non-EJ areas, EJ Communities have a problem with food insecurity (Figure 13). Food insecurity is the limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways. Feeding America conducts an annual study to estimate the number of food insecure people and the percentage of the population that experienced food insecurity at some point during a given year. According to their estimates, both the food insecurity rates and the food insecurity population are significantly higher in West Arden Arcade, North Highlands/Foothill Farms, and South Sacramento EJ communities than in non-EJ areas. Of the County-wide food-insecure population, Feeding America found that the majority of households which were considered food insecure were actually above the Federal poverty level used for nutrition programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC) and would not be eligible for assistance. Households that earn too much to qualify for Federal nutrition assistance programs but are still food insecure must choose between competing priorities such as housing, utilities and medical expenses.
The North Vineyard EJ Community serves as the contradiction to the baseline data conditions above. As a rural community which has been targeted for new growth, this community is estimated to have a food insecurity rate that is similar to that of non-EJ areas.
<>
Source: Feeding America, 2017
# SECTION 4: SAFE AND SANITARY HOMES
### INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE
Older homes have an increased likelihood of having major maintenance issues due to aging material and normal wear and tear. If homeowners with major maintenance issues are low income, it is likely that they would not have the personal resources to maintain their homes. For this reason, staff developed two criteria for identifying areas (census tracts) within the EJ Communities that potentially have a large number of homes that are inadequately maintained. The first criterion is having at least 80 percent of homes built before 1980. The second criterion is having at least 60 percent of households having annual incomes less than double the Federal poverty level.
Figure 15 shows the census tracts in EJ Communities that meet both criteria. Three of the four EJ Communities have large areas with older homes and lower-income residents. In the North Highlands/Foothill Farms EJ Community, the census tracts consist of McClellan Airbase and the residential area located east of Watt Avenue. There are limited residential units within the former base; this map should primarily focus on the residential area outside of the base. In the West Arden-Arcade EJ Community, the census tracts are located in the northern portion of the EJ Community. In the South Sacramento EJ Community, census tracts are near the town of Florin, or in the Fruitridge “Pocket” area, an older area that is adjacent to the City of Sacramento’s Oak Park neighborhood.
The 2010 Sacramento County Housing Conditions Survey (Survey) identified census tracts in the unincorporated County with high percentages of older homes and low-income residents to determine areas for housing condition field surveys (exterior only). The Survey identified five clusters of census tracts that may have housing maintenance issues, of which three are in EJ Communities. The other two clusters are semi-rural or rural areas west of North Highlands and in the Sacramento River Delta.
# Figure 14: Census Tracts in EJ Communities with Potentially Large Number of Houses Needing Maintenance
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms/Old Foothill Farms
## HOUSING OVERCROWDING
Housing overcrowding is often measured by determining the persons-per-room in a dwelling unit with houses that have more than one person per room considered overcrowded. There are a higher percentage of overcrowded homes in EJ Communities than in non-EJ areas (Figure 15). For all residences, the percentage of homes that are overcrowded in EJ communities is 7 percent while in non-EJ areas the percentage is 3 percent. For renter-occupied residences, the percentage of homes that are overcrowded in EJ communities is 10 percent compared to 6 percent in non-EJ areas. These percentages may not seem high; however, over 5,000 homes are considered overcrowded in EJ Communities.
### Figure 15: Percent Overcrowded Households (2012-2016)
<>
U.S. Census Bureau – American Communities Survey – 5-Year Estimates, 2017
## HOUSING COST-BURDENED
When a tenant or homeowner spends more than 30 percent of their income toward housing (including utilities), they are generally considered to be overpaying or cost-burdened. When a household is cost-burdened, there is less money for housing maintenance or other needs such as health care and healthy food.
Each of the EJ Communities has a much higher rate of housing cost-burdened households than non-EJ areas (**Figure 16**). Among the EJ Communities, West Arden-Arcade has the highest percentage of cost-burdened households (26.4 percent) while North Highlands/Foothill Farms has the lowest percentage (21.3 percent). In contrast, in non-EJ areas, the percentage of housing cost-burdened households is only 15.5 percent.
### Figure 16: Percentage Housing Cost Burdened Household (2009-2013)
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms/Old Foothill Farms.
Source: CalEnviroscreen, 2017
# SECTION 5: PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
## PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
### Pedestrian Facilities Inventory
Sacramento County does not have a comprehensive inventory of pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, street crossings, lighting, shade trees, or benches. Therefore, assessing the baseline for pedestrian facilities within EJ Communities is difficult. However, in 2007, Sacramento County Department of Transportation (SacDOT) conducted an inventory of pedestrian facilities to document existing conditions within the public rights-of-way as part of the creation of the County’s Pedestrian Master Plan. Not all pedestrian facilities are known to SacDOT and thus the inventory is not comprehensive. SacDOT used the inventory to determine high and low priority areas for sidewalk improvements. The following maps (Figure 17, Figure 18, and Figure 19) show locations of the high and low priority sidewalks improvement areas.
**Figure 17: South Sacramento Priority Sidewalk Areas**
<>
Source: Sacramento County Department of Transportation, 2007
### Figure 18: North Vineyard Priority Sidewalk Areas
<>
Source: Sacramento County Department of Transportation, 2017
### Figure 19: West Arden-Arcade and North Highlands/Foothill Farms Priority Sidewalk Areas
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms
Source: Sacramento County Department of Transportation, 2017
# ADA STANDARDS
The SB 1000 toolkit identifies American Disability Act (ADA) accessibility as a recommended indicator to assess pedestrian networks within a community. Figures 20, Figures 20[^p33-1] and 22 show the existing ADA ramps in each EJ community. Sacramento County’s ADA Transition Plan also identifies roadway intersections in the County that are in need of ADA curb ramps.
### Figures 20, 21 and 22: ADA Ramp Locations
<>
Source: Sacramento County Department of Transportation, 2017
Figure 23 shows how many ADA ramps are in each community per 1,000 dwelling units. West Arden-Arcade falls well below the other communities.
[^p33-1]: 201
<>
North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms
Source: Sacramento County Department of Transportation, 2017
### AMENITIES (LIGHTING, SHADING, BENCHES, TRASH, ETC)
Sacramento County does not have an exhaustive inventory of street lighting, benches, street landscaping, or trash receptacles. However, Sacramento Tree Foundation has collected tree canopy data for most of Sacramento County as part of the Green Prescription effort. Data was extremely limited in Vineyard and was therefore excluded. This data shows that the average canopy coverage percentage is much lower in North Highlands/Foothill Farms and South Sacramento than the average in non-EJ areas (Figure 24 andFigure 25).
### Figure 24: Average Canopy Coverage
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms
Source: Sacramento County Department of Transportation, 2007
Research for the Green Prescription effort found that "greater tree canopy was statistically significantly associated (p<0.05) with lower prevalence of overweight/obesity, more leisure vigorous physical activity, better self-reported general health, lower prevalence of asthma, and better neighborhood social cohesion."
### Figure 25: Canopy Map
<>
Source: Sacramento Tree Foundation, 2017
## BICYCLE NETWORK
### Bicycle Facilities
To encourage bicycle and pedestrian activity, a municipality must provide an adequate amount of bicycle lanes/trails and sidewalks that provide access to desired destinations. Sacramento County does not have a comprehensive inventory of pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, street crossings, lighting, shade trees, or benches. Therefore, assessing the baseline for pedestrian facilities within EJ Communities is difficult. However, there is a comprehensive inventory of Class I (off-road) and Class II (on-road) bike lanes. Figure 26 and Figure 27 show miles of Class I and Class II bike lanes per 1,000 dwelling units as of 2017.
For Class I bike trails, the amount of bike trail miles per 1,000 dwelling units in EJ Communities is much less than that in non-EJ areas. EJ Communities (except for North Vineyard) are in older developed areas where the amount of open space is limited. Non-EJ areas include parkways (such as the American River Parkway) and other open space areas that make it feasible to establish long segments of off-road bike trails. For Class II bike lanes, the amount of bike lane miles per 1,000 dwelling units in the South Sacramento and North Highlands/Foothill Farms EJ communities are comparable to that in non-EJ areas. However, the amount of bike trails per 1,000 dwelling units in West Arden-Arcade is much less than in the other EJ Communities.
#### Figure 26: Class I Bike Trails per 1,000 Residences
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms/Old Foothill Farms
Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 2017
### Figure 27: Class II Bike Trails per 1,000 Residences
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms/Old Foothill Farms
Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 2017
### Bike and Pedestrian Collisions
Besides providing bike lanes and sidewalks, a city or county must ensure that these infrastructures can be used safely. Recording bike and pedestrian collisions assists in gauging the safety level for walking or bicycling in a community. UC Berkeley developed a collision database called the Transportation Injury Mapping System, which provides information regarding crash data for all of California, which is called the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). According to the SWITRS a disproportionate amount of collisions within the County’s Urban Services Boundary (USB) involving a bike or pedestrian, occur in EJ Communities. Within the USB, 64 percent of the fatal collisions that has occurred from 2004 through 2014 have occurred in EJ Communities. The following Figures 29 and 30 shows the number of bicycle and pedestrian collisions per 1,000 dwelling units in each EJ Community and in non-EJ areas.
# Figure 28: Bike and Pedestrian Collisions in North Highlands. Foothill Farms and West Arden-Arcade
<>
Source: UC Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System, 2017
### Figure 29: Bike and Pedestrian Collisions in South Sacramento and North Vineyard
<>
Source: UC Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System, 2017
Staff calculated the number of bike and pedestrian collisions per 1,000 residences for each EJ Community and the non-EJ areas (Figure 30).
#### Figure 30: Bike and Pedestrian Collisions Occurrences per 1,000 Dwelling Units (2004-2014)
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms
Source: UC Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System, 2017
### PROVISIONS OF PARKS
According to the Sacramento County General Plan, parks define the quality of neighborhoods and communities and provide the setting for active and passive recreation, which benefits the residents of the immediate neighborhood, the larger community, and the broader region. Two ways to measure sufficient parks provision in a community are park accessibility and acreage.
#### Park Accessibility
According to Figure 31 below, the South Sacramento and West Arden-Arcade EJ Communities have park accessibility that is greater than or equal to that existing in non-EJ areas. These areas have at least 50 percent of their dwelling units being within a quarter mile of a public park. North Highlands/Foothill Farms is the urbanized area that has the least percentage of dwelling units within a quarter mile of a public park. North Vineyard is a rural area and thus does not have neighborhood parks. Figure 32 and Figure 33 shows EJ Community residential areas and quarter-mile buffers around public parks.
### Figure 31: Percentage of Residences within ¼ Mile of a Park
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms/Old Foothill Farms
Source: Sacramento County GIS, 2017
### Figure 32: Park Access in North Highlands and West Arden-Arcade
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms/Old Foothill Farms
Source: Sacramento County GIS, 2017
### Figure 33: Park Access in South Sacramento
<>
Source: Sacramento County GIS, 2017
### Park Acreage
Though EJ Communities have more dwelling units that are close to public parks than non-EJ areas, non-EJ areas have more park acreage. As shown in Figure 34 the amount of park acres per 1,000 dwelling units is much higher in non-EJ areas than in the EJ Communities. The non-EJ areas have almost 8.5 acres per 1,000 dwelling units and South Sacramento, the EJ Community with the highest acreage amount, has only 5.0 acres per 1,000 dwelling units. The reason for this disproportionality is that communities in the non-EJ areas have large community parks while the EJ Communities lack community parks.
**Figure 34: Park Acres per 1,000 Dwelling Units**
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms/Old Foothill Farms
Source: Sacramento County GIS, 2017
### PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LEVELS
### Obesity
Obesity is a serious health issue and personal involvement in physical activity is one way to prevent obesity. Data on obesity in the County is limited. Sacramento County initially had data for a few census tracks within County including the West Arden-Arcade and South Sacramento EJ Communities. Data was later found for North Highlands/Foothill Farms but data for West Vineyard was still not available. Figure 36 shows obesity rates for the communities where data is available.
### Figure 35: Average Percentage of Obese Individuals
<>
Source: Sacramento County Department of Health Services, 2017, 2018
California has the fifth lowest adult obesity rate in the United States, with 25 percent of adults being obese in 2016 (The State of Obesity 2017). Based on the limited data available, Figure 33 shows that the non-EJ areas obesity percentage is close to the California average, but percentages for West Arden-Arcade, North Highlands/Foothill Farms are South Sacrament are all above the state average.
### ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION USERS
Biking or walking to work is a way to participate in physical activity on a daily basis. The U.S. Census Bureau collects information regarding means of transportation to work for people over the age of 16. Figure 36 and Figure 37 below identify the percentage of people within each EJ Community and the non-EJ areas that commute to work by walking or biking. All EJ communities have a higher percentage of individuals that walk to work than in non-EJ areas, while North Highlands and West Arden-Arcade also have a higher percentage of individuals that bike to work (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017).
#### Figure 36: Average Percentage of People Who Walk to Work (By Census Tract)
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2017
#### Figure 37: Average Percentage of People Who Bike to Work (By Census Tract)
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2017
# SECTION 6: CRIME PREVENTION
### CRIME HOTSPOTS
LexisNexis has an online Community Crime Map where users can view reported crimes on a map or a table. The Community Crime Map could also identify high crime areas or “hot spots” based on density of incidents. The following maps (Figures 38-40) show the density of robberies on individuals that occurred during a one-year period between November 29, 2016, and November 29, 2017, within EJ Communities. A robbery is a crime of opportunity that often occurs in an area where it is easy to conceal the illegal act due to physical barriers, inadequate lighting or lack of observers. Many robberies occur in parking lots as people walk to or from their cars. Because most robberies occur in certain environments, robbery incidents can be reduced through Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) elements.
Each of the EJ Communities besides North Vineyard has “hot spots” for robberies and a large proportion of these areas have land uses with parking lots. During November 29, 2016, through November 29, 2017, four of the five robbery hot spots in the urbanized unincorporated County were located in EJ Communities. North Highlands/Foothill Farms had two hot spots. There was a large hot spot in an area west of Hillsdale Boulevard between Walerga Road and Palm Avenue. This hot spot included a strip commercial center, apartments and single-family neighborhoods. A smaller hot spot was at the northeast corner of the Elkhorn/Walerga Road intersection and comprised a shopping center and apartments (Figure 40). In West Arden-Arcade, the hot spot was along Edison Avenue between Howe Avenue and Bell Avenue where there are apartments and single-family neighborhoods (Figure 39). In South Sacramento, the hot spot was the Florin Towne Centre, a large shopping center located west of the Florin Road/Stockton Boulevard intersection (Figure 38).
The four robbery hotspots spots have some permanency because these existed in the same area during the previous year. Two of the hotspots (west of Hillsdale Boulevard in North Highlands/Foothill Farms and Florin Towne Center in South Sacramento also existed during the November 29, 2012 to November 29, 2013 time period.
#### Figures 38, 39 and 40: Robbery Hot Spots
<>
**South Sacramento**
<>
### West Arden-Arcade
<>
### North Highlands /Foothill Farms
Source: Lexis Nexis, Community Crime Map, 2017.
http://www.communitycrimemap.com/
### VIOLENT CRIME AND PROPERTY CRIME RATES
The following Table 6 and Table 7 show the violent crime and property crime rates per 1,000 residents during 2016 for geographic areas that include EJ Communities. The tables also show the rates for the combined Sacramento County Sheriff’s (SCS) and Sacramento City Police Department (CPD) service areas.
Each of the geographic areas in Table 6 had higher rates of violent crimes than the combined SCS and CPD service areas. Fruitridge/Stockton Boulevard (includes a large portion of the South Sacramento EJ Community) had a violent crime rate that was over 60 percent over the SCS/CPD combined service areas. While Arden-Arcade (includes the West Arden-Arcade EJ Community) and North Highlands/Foothill Farms had violent crime rates that were over 12 and 18 percent over the SCS/CPD combined service areas respectively.
Supporting Research for Sacramento County Environmental Justice Element
For property crimes (Table 7), only Arden-Arcade had a higher rate of property crimes (25 percent higher) than the SCS/CPD combined service areas. North Highlands/Foothill Farms and Fruitridge/Stockton Boulevard had property crime rates that were about 13 percent lower than the rate in the SCS/CPD combined service areas.
### Table 6: Violent Crime Rates per 1,000 Residents
| Geographic Area That Includes EJ Community | Rate Per 1000 Residents | Percent Over SCS and CPD Service Area |
| :--- | :---: | :---: |
| Arden-Arcade (1) | 3.7 | 12.12% |
| North Highlands/Foothill Farms (2) | 3.9 | 18.18% |
| South Sacramento (3) | 5.3 | 60.61% |
| Total Sacramento County Sheriff's (SCS) and City Police Department (CPD) Service Area | 3.3 | NA |
Notes: (1) Arden Arcade includes West Arden-Arcade EJ Community and portion of Arden-Arcade east of Watt Avenue (2) North Highlands/Foothill Farms consistent with North Highlands/Foothill Farms EJ Community boundaries (3) Fruitridge/Stockton Boulevard includes South Sacramento EJ Community south of 47th Avenue and portions of City of Sacramento (Parkway, Valley Hi)
Source: LPC Consulting Associates, Inc. for Black Child Legacy, 2018
### Table 7: Property Crime Rates per 1,000 Residents
| Geographic Area That Includes EJ Community | Rate Per 1000 Residents | Percent Over SCS and CPD Service Area |
| :--- | :---: | :---: |
| Arden-Arcade (1) | 32.5 | 25.00% |
| North Highlands/Foothill Farms (2) | 22.6 | -13.08% |
| Fruitridge/Stockton Boulevard (3) | 22.5 | -13.46% |
| Total Sacramento County Sheriff's (SCS) and City Police Department (CPD) Service Area | 26 | NA |
Notes same as Table 6
Source: LPC Consulting Associates, Inc. for Black Child Legacy, 2018
### CONVENIENCE STORES AND LIQUOR STORES
Some land uses tend to have more crime occurring within their vicinity than other uses. Generally, commercial areas tend to have more crime than low-density residential areas or mixed-use areas. More specifically, high density of alcohol outlets in low income areas are associated with higher rates of violent crime as shown in a number of studies (Scribner et al. 1995, Gruenewald et al. 2006, Roman et al. 2008). That is, more assaults, domestic violence and other violent crimes occur when there are bars, liquor stores, and other alcohol-selling places clustered together in low-income areas.
Two factors probably contribute to the above situation. The first factor is that these businesses create a perception of social disorder - broken bottles littered around a
liquor store and a parking lot full of cars with people drinking alcohol gives the impression that the normal rules about orderly behavior are not enforced (Stewart). The second factor is that a high density of alcohol outlets attracts individuals who are more inclined to be violent while at the same time attracts individuals who are more vulnerable to being assaulted. Besides causing more crime, studies have shown that a high density of alcohol outlets contributes to other alcohol-related problems such as drinking and driving, higher rates of pedestrian injuries caused by vehicles, and child abuse and neglect (Stewart).
The location and density of potential crime-attracting land uses such as convenience stores and liquor stores were identified in EJ Communities and non-EJ areas. Figure 42 shows the number of convenience stores and liquor stores that have off-sale liquor licenses (License Types 20 and 21) per 1,000 dwelling units in each of the EJ Communities and in non-EJ areas. EJ Communities have a much higher number of these types of business per 1,000 dwelling units than non-EJ areas.
### Figure 41: Convenience Stores and Liquor Stores per 1,000 Dwelling Units
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms
Source: County of Sacramento Sheriff’s Department, 2018
# SECTION 7: CIVIL ENGAGEMENT
### COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS THAT AFFECT CIVIL ENGAGEMENT
Population by Race and Ethnicity: While the County of Sacramento is a kaleidoscope of ethnic and cultural diversity with approximately 1.5 million people, there is a much larger concentration of minority residents within the Environmental Justice (EJ) Communities. For example, in South Sacramento more than 70 percent of the community population belongs to an ethnic or racial minority. Any public engagement effort in EJ Communities must take into account the ethnic and racial diversity that exists in these communities.
Languages Spoken and English Proficiency: A diversity of languages exist in EJ Communities and there are different levels of English Proficiency. For example, the most common primary languages in North Highlands/Foothill Farms include English, Spanish, Russian, Other Slavic languages and Tagalog. In North Vineyard, common languages include, English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese. South Sacramento is the only community area where a majority of the population does not speak English as their primary language (See Linguistic Isolation sub-section below). It also has the most diversity of primary languages.
Population by Age: According to the U.S. 2010 Census data, the age of the population throughout EJ communities and non-EJ areas are relatively consistent. However, other age demographic findings give the County a better understanding of how to present and communicate with particular areas. For example, in the South Sacramento and North Highlands/Foothill Farms EJ Communities there is a higher percentage of persons under the age of 20 while conversely in non-EJ areas, there is a higher percentage of persons over the age of 60.
### LINGUISTIC ISOLATION
Linguistically isolated households are those where no one over age 14 has English proficiency. These households are often disadvantaged when trying to attain important information that affects their lives. Adults lacking a command of English may not be able to comprehend health care information that they need or comprehend important directions when there is an emergency. Lacking a command of English may also keep members of a household from participating in public meetings on issues that affect their quality of life. For this reason, the percent of linguistic isolation households in a community often indicates the potential for civil engagement in that community if traditional public engagement methods such as English only public meetings are used.
Figure 43 shows the percentage of limited English speaking households during 2011 to 2015 in each of the EJ Communities and the non-EJ areas. Among the EJ Communities, South Sacramento has the highest percentage (17.4 percent) while West Arden-Arcade has the lowest percentage (6.3 percent). All of the EJ Communities have higher percentages of limited English speaking households than in non-EJ areas (4.6 percent).
### Figure 42: Percent Limited English Speaking Households (2011-2015)
<>
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms
Source: CalEnviroscreen, 2017
### LACK OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
Neighborhood and community organizations play an important role in the public decision-making process. Individuals in these organizations represent members of the community who cannot or will not attend meetings where decisions are made (often held after a long day at work). Neighborhoods that are disadvantaged often lack representation in the decision-making process that results in public decisions made without being vested by neighborhood residents. In contrast, the more advantaged neighborhoods are represented by a community or neighborhood association that protects the interest of the neighborhood during the public decision-making process. This results in decisions that are oftentimes influenced by neighborhood representatives.
This situation exists in the unincorporated Sacramento County where most neighborhoods in EJ Communities are not represented by a neighborhood or community association while most neighborhoods in non-EJ areas do have such organizations.
### HIGHEST EDUCATION LEVELS
The highest education level of residents within the EJ communities significantly varies from those in non-EJ areas. According to Table 8 below, there is a much lower percentage of residents in EJ Communities that have bachelor or post-bachelor degrees than the percentage of residents in non-EJ areas (with the exception of West Arden-Arcade). Conversely, there is a much higher percentage of residents in EJ Communities that have no high school diploma than the percentage of residents in non-EJ areas.
### Table 8: Highest Educational Level
| | North Highlands | South Sacramento | North Vineyard | West Arden Arcade | Non-EJ |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| No high school diploma | 16.4% | 30.4% | 20.7% | 16% | 7.9% |
| High school diploma or GED | 30.4% | 29.4% | 26.7% | 27% | 21.2% |
| Some college | 30.0% | 23.0% | 22.4% | 26% | 27.9% |
| Associate's degree | 10.3% | 6.9% | 10.6% | 9% | 10.7% |
| Bachelor's degree | 9.2% | 8.1% | 14.9% | 18% | 20.7% |
| Post-bachelor's degree | 3.7% | 2.3% | 4.7% | 5% | 11.5% |
Note: North Highlands includes Foothill Farms and Old Foothill Farms.
Source: US 2010 Census
# REFERENCES
Altingdag, Duha T. (2009). Crime and Unemployment: Evidence from Europe. 2011. Auburn University Department of Economics Working Paper Series. Available: [https://cla.auburn.edu/econwp/Archives/2011/2011-13.pdf](https://cla.auburn.edu/econwp/Archives/2011/2011-13.pdf)
Altingdag, Duha T. (2009). Crime and Unemployment: Evidence from Europe. 2011. Auburn University Department of Economics Working Paper Series. Available: [https://cla.auburn.edu/econwp/Archives/2011/2011-13.pdf](https://cla.auburn.edu/econwp/Archives/2011/2011-13.pdf)
Anderson S. (1990). The 1990 Life Sciences Research Office (LSRO) Report on Nutritional Assessment Defined Terms Associated with Food Access. Core Indicators of Nutritional State for Difficult to Sample Populations.
California Air Resources Board. Summary: Diesel Particulate Matter Health Impacts. Available: [https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/summary-diesel-particulate-matter-health-impacts](https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/summary-diesel-particulate-matter-health-impacts)
California Environmental Justice Alliance, Placeworks (2017). SB 1000 Implementation Toolkit Planning for Healthy Communities.
CalEPA (2017) California Environmental Protection Agency. CalEnviroScreen 3.0. Available: [https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/ces3report.pdf](https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/ces3report.pdf)
City of National City (2012). National City General Plan, Health and Environmental Justice Element (HEJ). Available: [http://www.nationalcityca.gov/home/showdocument?id=5220](http://www.nationalcityca.gov/home/showdocument?id=5220) .
City of Portland (OR) (2015). Exhibit A: City of Portland CPTED Definition and Policy Strategies. Available: [https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/article/272978](https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/article/272978)
Davis, Brennan, Christopher Carpenter (2009). Proximity of Fast Food Restaurants to Schools and Adolescent Obesity. American Journal of Public Health, 99,505-510. Available: [https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2008.137638](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2008.137638)
EPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Ozone Pollution. Available: [https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution](https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution)
Gruenewald, Paul J., Lillian Remer (2006). Changes in Outlet Densities Affect Violence Rates. *Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research*. Vol. 30, Issue 7, 1184-1193.
Jeffery, Robert W., Judy Baxter, Maureen McGuire, Jennifer Linde (2006). Are Fast Food Restaurants an Environmental Risk Factor for Obesity? *International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity*, 3:35. Available: [https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5868-3-2](https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5868-3-2)
LPC Consulting Associates, Inc. (2018). Crime and Safety Data Profiles (For Arden-Arcade, North Highlands/Foothill Farms and South Sacramento) For Black Child Legacy Campaign. Available: [http://blackchildlegacy.org/neighborhoods/](http://blackchildlegacy.org/neighborhoods/)
Lin, Ming-Jen (2008). Does Unemployment Increase Crime? Evidence from U.S. Data 1974-2000. *Human Resources*, Spring 2008 vol. 43 no. 2 413-436.
Raphael, Steven, Rudolf Winter-Ebmer (2001). Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime. *The Journal of Law & Economics*, Vol. 44, No. 1 (April 2001), 259-283. Available:
# Supporting Research for Sacramento County Environmental Justice Element
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/320275?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (2016). 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Sacramento County Office of Planning and Environmental Review (2009). Exterior Housing Condition Survey.
(2011). Sacramento County General Plan.
Roman, Caterina G., Shannon E. Reid, Avinash S. Bhati, Bogdan Tereschenko (2008). Alcohol Outlets as Attractors of Violence and Disorder: A Closer Look at the Neighborhood Environment. Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. Available: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/31701/411663-Alcohol-Outlets-as-Attractors-of-Violence-and-Disorder.PDF
Scribner, Richard A., David P. MacKinnon, James H. Dwyer (1995). The Risk of Assaultive Violence and Alcohol Availability in Los Angeles County. *American Journal of Public Health*, Vol. 85, 335-340. Available: http://www.public.asu.edu/~davidpm/classes/publications/1995AmericanJournalofPublicHealth.pdf
Stewart, Katheryn. How Alcohol Outlets Affect Neighborhood Violence. Prevention Research Center, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. Available: http://resources.prev.org/documents/AlcoholViolenceGruenewald.pdf
Trust for America’s Health (2017). The State of Obesity. Available: https://www.tfah.org/report-details/the-state-of-obesity-2017/
Turbutt, Claire, Janet Richardson, Clare Pettinger (2019), The impact of hot food takeaways near schools in the UK on childhood obesity: a systematic review of the evidence, *Journal of Public Health*, Volume 41, Issue 2, June 2019, Pages 231–239. Available:https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article-abstract/41/2/231/4953439?redirectedFrom=fulltex
United States Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (2009). Physical Activity Fundamental to Preventing Disease.
Youth.Gov Benefits for Youth, Families and Communities. Available: https://youth.gov/youth-topics/afterschool-programs/benefits-youth-families-and-communities
(blank page)