Friends of Sutter’s Landing Park

October 14, 2011

Ms. Dana Allen, Associate Planner

Community Development Department

300 Richards Blvd., 3rd Floor

Sacramento, CA 95811

RE:Solar Photovoltaic Park at 28th Street Landfill – Sutter’s Landing Park

Dear Ms. Allen:

Friends of Sutter’s Landing Park (FOSL) respectfully urges the City of Sacramento to withdraw the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the “Solar Photovoltaic Park at 28th Street Landfill (P11-016)” because the document fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by inadequately assessing the adverse environmental impacts of the project and failing to mitigate those impacts below a level of significance. The project would convert about 100 acres of current parkland to industrial energy generation uses representing approximately 58% of the Sutter’s Landing Park acreage.

We urge the City to significantly redesign the project to be compatible with and enhance the existing wildlife, aesthetic, park and recreational values of Sutter’s Landing Park and the adjacent American River Parkway. Unfortunately, the current proposal does the opposite.

The project would cause irreparable damage to several wildlife species by converting about 100 acres of important habitat adjacent to the American River Parkway to industrial energy generation uses. By removing the habitat values of this property, the project would cause very significant adverse impacts to several wildlife species including the Swainson’s Hawk which is protected under the California Endangered Species Act, the White-tailed Kite which is a “Fully Protected Bird” pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 3511; the Northern Harrier which is listed as a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Game; and several other wildlife species including red-tailed hawks, red-shouldered hawks, and many others. By eliminating about 100 acres of important wildlife habitat directly adjacent to the American River Parkway, the project would damage the wildlife, recreational, and aesthetic values of the Parkway which is protected by a series of federal, state, and local laws. Furthermore, the project is inconsistent with the City of Sacramento’s General Plan.

By requiring the preparation of a full environmental impact report, CEQA enables City leaders and the public to review and consider the potential adverse impacts of the project and a range of alternatives to avoid or mitigate those impacts. While we generally support generating electricity from renewable sources including solar power, locating the facilities in the proper places is critical to avoiding the type of adverse wildlife and other environmental impacts that are subject to the provisions of CEQA, the California Endangered Species Act, the Urban American River Parkway Preservation Act, the American River Parkway Plan 2008, the City of Sacramento General Plan and other laws.

Friends of Sutter’s Landing Park:

FOSL was established nearly two years ago by Sacramento residents who use and greatly value the wildlife and recreational resources at Sutter’s Landing Park which is one of Sacramento’s “Gateways to the American River Parkway.” FOSL volunteers are working with City officials to raise funding to enhance the Park’s natural and recreational resources, recognizing the increasingly important contributions that Sutter’s Landing Park and the American River Parkway provide to the quality of life for Sacramento’s residents.

When the City first presented the concept on February 17, 2011, FOSL members urged the City to pursue a “win-win” project that advanced dual goals of generating solar energy and enhancing the environmental and recreational resources at the park. FOSL members consistently urged the pursuit of the “win-win” approach in subsequent meetings with City officials, with Conergy (project developer), and at public meetings. We were very disappointed that the project described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to seize the opportunity of a “win-win” project and instead proposes to cause significant long-term adverse impacts to sensitive species and other wildlife and diminish the natural, aesthetic and recreational values of the American River Parkway and Sutter’s Landing Park.

American River Parkway:

The American River Parkway is a vital environmental, recreational, aesthetic and economic resource for the Sacramento region. The Parkway spans approximately 29 miles from the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers to Folsom Dam providing a vital wildlife corridor and scenic lands enjoyed by numerous wildlife species and more than 8,000,000 user days per year.

The American River Parkway is protected under federal law through designation as a National Wild and Scenic River; through state law including the Urban American River Parkway Preservation Act (Public Resources Code Section 5840, et al); through the City of Sacramento’s General Plan, and other laws. The Parkway uses are governed by the American River Parkway Plan which was adopted by the County of Sacramento in 2008 and subsequently approved by the City of Sacramento. The Parkway Plan recognizes that “…the American River Parkway is often referred to as ‘the jewel’ of the Sacramento Region.” (American River Parkway Plan 2008, Page 9).

Furthermore, the State of California’s Urban American River Parkway Preservation Act provides for the following:

  • “The Legislature hereby adopts the American River Parkway Plan so as to provide coordination with local agencies in the protection and management of the diverse and valuable natural land, water, native wildlife, and vegetation of the American River Parkway.”
  • “Actions of state and local agencies with regard to land use decisions shall be consistent with the American River Parkway Plan…”

(Public Resources Code Section 5842)

The American River Parkway Plan establishes important goals including:

  • “To provide appropriate access and facilities so that present and future generations can enjoy the amenities and resources of the Parkway which enhance the enjoyment of leisure activities.”
  • “To preserve, protect, interpret and improve the natural, archaeological, historical and recreational resources of the Parkway, including an adequate flow of high quality water, anadramous and resident fishes, migratory and resident wildlife, and diverse natural vegetation.”
  • “To mitigate adverse effects of activities and facilities adjacent to the Parkway.”

(American River Parkway Plan 2008, page 10)

The American River Parkway Plan specifically provides for the following:

  • “Jurisdictions shall use their authority to reduce, eliminate, and/or mitigate potential adverse impacts upon the Parkway caused by adjacent land uses and activities.” (Policy 7.19)
  • “Structures shall be located so that neither they, nor activities associated with them, cause damage to Parkway plants or wildlife.” (Policy 7.19.1)
  • “Structures shall be located so that neither they, nor activities associated with them, impede the recreational use of the Parkway and such structures shall be consistent with the goals and policies of this Plan.” (Policy 7.19.2)
  • “Development immediately adjacent to the Parkway shall respect the intent of the Parkway goals by reducing visual impacts through context sensitive site planning and building design.” (Policy 7.25)

The energy generation project is located immediately adjacent to a section of the American River Parkway that is designated under the Plan as a “Protected Area.” This Protected Area provides a very narrow corridor that runs along the northern edge of the proposed energy generation project and along the southern edge of the American River. (American River Parkway Plan, page 158)

The American River Parkway Plan specifically provides that for Protected Areas:

  • “…facilities and other improvements are limited to those which are needed for the public enjoyment of the natural environment.”
  • “Emphasis is on protection and restoration of large portions of relatively natural areas which stand a better chance of preservation than smaller pieces and provide better support for wildlife.”
  • “Activities in protected areas include all Nature Appreciation, all Trails Recreation, and Aquatic Recreation, other than motorized boating and motorized boat access.”

(American River Parkway Plan 2008, page 117)

The project would convert nearly 100 acres of wildlife habitat (“the habitat”) directly adjacent to the American River Parkway to industrial solar energy generation uses. The project would essentially render this grasslands foraging habitat useless for several wildlife species that use and depend on the habitat provided by the American River Parkway. As discussed below, the project would eliminate foraging habitat that is used by American River Parkway wildlife including the threatened Swainson’s Hawk that has nested very near the project site; the Fully Protected White-tailed Kite which has also nested very near the project site; the Northern Harrier which is a Species of Special Concern; and several additional wildlife species. (Attachment A)

Despite these significant impacts, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) asserts that “… the primary effect on the Parkway would be the visibility of the solar park from the north side of the American River. The solar park would not hinder development of habitat or other restoration efforts.”

The MND fails to adequately assess the adverse environmental impacts of the energy generation facility on the American River Parkway despite clear state and local policies that the wildlife values of the Parkway must be protected. The project would significantly narrow the wildlife corridor along this portion of the river leaving only a narrow band of open space along the American River. The MND fails to assess and disclose the impacts of narrowing the habitat corridor along this stretch of the river or impacts to other Parkway resources.

As mitigation for the 100 acres of lost foraging habitat directly adjacent to the American River Parkway Protected Area, the MND proposes that the City purchase fee title or a conservation easement on 48.52 acres of farmland within five miles of the project site (MND, page 47). The MND provides no evidence or analysis demonstrating that this type of habitat is available for purchase adjacent to the American River Parkway, especially in the project vicinity. The MND fails to assess what adverse impact to the Parkway and its environmental values would remain unmitigated even if the City was to purchase the mitigation lands. The MND’s inadequacies leave the reviewer with the conclusion that the project would result in undisclosed and unmitigated significant adverse impacts to the American River Parkway’s natural resources, violating CEQA as well as a host of other state and local policies.

The MND also fails to provide an adequate assessment of potential adverse impacts to the American River Parkway and to the American River’s water quality which serves a variety of beneficial uses including domestic water supply, fisheries, wildlife, and water-contact recreation. The SCS Engineers report indicates:

  • “However, there will be erosion that cannot be eliminated using this procedure. This condition will require inspections and repairs in addition to routine post closure maintenance.”
  • “The loads of the solar module pads (321 lbs/sf) will increase the occurrence of localized differential settlement that will require moving the solar panel modules and placing additional solar and gravel to restore the grades. The condition will require repairs in addition to routine post closure maintenance.”

(MNC Attachment C, Drainage Report, SCS Engineers August 2, 2011.)

The MND fails to assess and disclose the potential adverse environmental impacts that could result from the project-induced erosion and settling. For example, could this result in any releases of pollutants from the landfill, especially during the period between when any release may begin and be repaired by the City? Would there be any adverse impacts from the erosion? Would there be any adverse impacts from dismantling and moving the solar module pads?

Wildlife:

The MND fails to adequately assess and disclose the wildlife uses of the project site and the potential adverse impacts the project would have to wildlife. The MND also fails to include mitigation measures that reduce those impacts below a level of significance. The Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) the MND relies on is based on a single day of wildlife observations and habitat assessment as well as a review of databases that may not include complete and current information.

Despite only observing wildlife for a single day at the project site, AES biologists observed a rich variety of wildlife using the site including the threatened Swainson’s Hawk which is protected by the California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 2070, et al); White-tailed Kite which is a “Fully Protected Bird” that is protected pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 3511; fourteen other species of bird; two mammals; and a reptile. Observations on this single day indicate a pretty robust use of the project site by wildlife including Special Status Species. Had AES spent an adequate amount of time conducting field studies, they would have observed additional wildlife species using the project site. Despite this, AES asserts the site only provides low quality foraging habitat. It appears the wildlife that use the project site have demonstrated the AES assertion to be incorrect.

  • Swainson’s Hawk

As indicated above, the Swainson’s Hawk is a listed species protected by the California Endangered Species Act. Adverse impacts to the Swainson’s Hawk or its habitat are significant adverse impacts under CEQA.

The Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) incorrectly asserts that the “Swainson’s Hawk has a low potential to forage within the study area.” Curiously, that conclusion is derived right after a sentence that indicates that “(a) Swainson’s Hawk pair was observed foraging within the nonnative grassland within the study area and on land to the north of the study area, north of the American River during the May 27, 2011 biological survey” (Emphasis added). A more logical conclusion after observing a pair of the Swainson’s Hawks foraging in the study area would be that the site provides a high potential rather than a low potential to be foraging area for this threatened species.

Furthermore, Swainson’s Hawks have been observed foraging the grasslands habitat on the project site by park visitors on several occasions. Friends of the River Banks and Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk regularly hold events at Sutter’s Landing Park educating visitors about the Swainson’s Hawk and providing the visitors with opportunities to view the birds on and near the project site. Attachment A includes photographs of Swainson’s Hawks on and or foraging above the project site for food. Although the BRA indicates that AES staff did not see any rodents during their one-day visit to the project site, there is strong evidence that rodents are present and provide a source of food for other wildlife. For example, the Attachment A includes photos of raptors with rodents that they caught while foraging on the grasslands on the project site. Had they spent more time, AES biologists would have seen more rodents.

The BRA concludes that the “nearest record with an active (Swainson’sHawk) nest within the last 5 years is from 2008 (CNDDB occurrence) and is mapped approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the study area along the Sacramento River.” (BRA, page 24) However, Swainson’s Hawk nests have been documented during three of the last five years in close proximity to the project site in the riparian zone adjacent to the north bank of the American River opposite of the Sutter’s Landing site. Friend of the River Banks and Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk have conducted tours of the park when visitors were shown the nest sites and were able to observe the birds, and provided this information on their websites. Photos of the Swainson’s Hawk nest sites are included in Attachment A. Had AES conducted an adequate review, they would have learned about this nesting site close to the project site. It is curious they did not conduct additional research given that they had concluded that the “established riparian habitats along the American River to the north of the study area provides optimal nesting habitat for this species within the cottonwood, California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and willow (Salix sp.) trees exceeding heights of 50 feet.” (MND, page 40 and BRA, page 24) Furthermore, the MND fails to assess the impact of the loss of 100 acres of foraging habitat on the ability of Swainson’s Hawks to nest close to the project site in light of the potential loss of an important food source.

The proposed mitigation does not reduce adverse impacts to the Swainson’s Hawk below levels of significance for the following reasons: (1) AES draws the unsupported conclusion that the grasslands provide low-quality foraging habitat for the Swainson’s Hawk; (2) AES fails to consider Swainson’s Hawk nesting sites within close proximity to the project site; (3) AES fails to consider the impacts to the Swainson’s Hawk habitat values that would result from removing 100-acres of foraging habitat directly adjacent to the American River Parkway; and (4) the MND proposes inadequate habitat mitigation that fails to reduce impacts below the level of significance.