AGENDA REPORT

Meeting Date:______Agenda Item # ______City Manager Approval:

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Scott Friend, Community Development Director Rick Crabtree, City Manager/Attorney

SUBJECT: PJ Helicopters Hangar Expansion Project – Approval of Modified Land Lease Agreement and Parcel Merger Action

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

Approve the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration; proposed Airport Lease Agreement with PJ Helicopters, Inc. and Parcel Merger action thereby approving the actions necessary to approve the PJ Helicopters Hangar Expansion Project.

THE CITY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROVIDER

SUMMARY:

PJ Helicopters, Inc. (PJ) currently leases approximately 5 acres of property from the City on Langley Way in the southeast portion of the City’s airport property. The requested actions (new proposed Lease agreement and parcel merger) would replace the existing approved lease, expand the area of ground that is leased to PJ to approximately 12 acres, and, re-align the land division boundaries in the project area.

The proposed term of the new ground lease is 50 years. This would provide space and time for PJ’s planned expansion project as well allow for longer- term business planning for the existing facility. The modified (merged) parcel boundaries would adjust the various parcel boundaries in the area to accommodate the proposed project and would have the effect of re-integrating the existing parcel (existing PJ Helicopter project site) into the larger city-owned airport parcel.

The City of Red Bluff is an Equal Opportunity Provider

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:

In May of 2001, the City Council approved the existing 50 year ground lease to allow PJ to operate to operate and construct the existing hanger and office facilities. No supplem

DISCUSSION:

Project Description: The proposed project site is located within the city limits of the City of Red Bluff in the southwest portion of the City. The project site is west of S. Jackson Street and approximately 0.5 mile east of the south- end of the Red Bluff Municipal Airport runway. Access to the site and the existing PJ Helicopters facility is taken off of Langley Way, an existing public road. Red Bank Creek is approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the site at its closest point. The nearest residential uses are located approximately 0.3 mile northeast of the site.

All lands immediately adjacent to the project site are vacant and undeveloped and are owned by the City of Red Bluff as part of the City’s Municipal Airport facility.

The City of Red Bluff is an Equal Opportunity Provider

The only exception is the existing PJ Helicopters facility located directly west of the project site which is an existing private business located on City-owned property.

The proposed project site is a vacant, undeveloped 2.66-acre site located directly east of and adjacent to the existing developed PJ Helicopters facility. The proposed project will consist of the construction of a new ± 31,900-square-foot steel building (hangar), which will provide additional aircraft storage, and maintenance space, office space, storage areas, restroom facilities, and employee exercise facilities. The project will also include the development of new parking facilities, landscaped areas, a storm water retention pond, fire hydrants, and the extension of city water infrastructure from existing facilities on S. Jackson Street to support the development of the building.

As described by the applicant in their application, the project is for the provision of additional hangar space to accommodate existing helicopters and maintenance activities and will not result in any direct increase in flight operations or employees at the existing facility.

The City of Red Bluff is an Equal Opportunity Provider

Currently, PJ Helicopters operates on City-owned property at the Airport. In the past, the City considering selling the relevant property to PJ outright, but was discouraged from doing so by the FAA. Accordingly, a long-term ground lease was used to accommodate PJ’s need for space in 2001. PJ has now outgrown the existing facility and plans to build a new hanger and related facilities. The proposed Lease would expand the Ground Lease area to approximately 12 acres. 50 years was selected as the term for the Lease to ensure that PJ has ample opportunity to recover its investment in the on-site facilities.

Entitlement Actions and Requests: The proposed project consists of four primary elements as follows: 1. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review requirements via the approval of an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND); 2. Approval of a modified land lease with PJ Helicopters, LLC; 3. Approval of a Parcel Merger action to merger an existing parcel to facilitate the project; and, 4. Approval of Design Review application #2016-04.

The City of Red Bluff is an Equal Opportunity Provider

A formal design review application for the project was submitted to the City in March of 2016. A review of the submitted materials determined that the project was subject to further review under the CEQA and the preparation of the necessary environmental review document was initiated. The project applicant contracted privately for various technical studies that were provided to and peer reviewed by the City and utilized in support of the project analysis. Additionally, the City contracted for the preparation of the CEQA analysis document and various technical studies to include a noise analysis. During the time period that technical studies and environmental documents were being prepared, the City worked with the applicant to finalize the details of the project.

Project Review and Consideration: The proposed project was reviewed by the City of Red Bluff Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the project has been recommended for approval subject to Conditions of Approval which have been prepared for the project. The project was reviewed by the City of Red Bluff Airport Land Use Commission at their meeting of April 12, 2017. At the conclusion of the presentation of the project, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposal by the City.

The City of Red Bluff is an Equal Opportunity Provider

The project was presented to and reviewed by the City of Red Bluff Planning Commission at their regular meeting of April 25, 2017. At the conclusion of the presentation of the project, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposal by the City Council.

This item is presented to the City Council for action as a noticed public hearing. A notice of the Council’s consideration of the matter was placed in the Red Bluff Daily News as required by State law.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

As detailed above, the City of Red Bluff prepared an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project and package of required actions. The document included technical studies in the areas of biological resources, cultural resources and noise. The IS/MND document was circulated for a 30-day public review period (SCH#2017022075) beginning on February 28, 2017.

At the close of the public review period two comments were received. Comments were received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Water Resources Control Board.

The City of Red Bluff is an Equal Opportunity Provider

All pertinent agency comments have been addressed via the inclusion of mitigation measures or via modifications to the proposed project. Significant findings and determinations resulting from this effort include:  Determination that the project will not exceed City of Red Bluff noise standards or result is significant noise increases in the area;  Public safety (fire) to the site will be enhanced due to the construction of the proposed water line and fire hydrants;  No impacts to sensitive biological, cultural or historic resources will result from the project; and,  No impacts associated with airport operations, air quality, traffic or public facilities will result.

CITY FISCAL IMPACT:

No impact to the General Fund is anticipated as a result of the project. Costs associated with the processing of the project have been paid for by the applicant via project application and supplemental review costs (environmental analysis document).

The City of Red Bluff is an Equal Opportunity Provider

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

Based upon the information provided above and the information submitted in support of the proposed project, staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Approve the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration approved for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 2. Approve the modified ground lease with PJ Helicopters to facilitate the project; and 3. Approve Parcel Merger #2017-01, and direct staff to cause the documents to be recorded.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Project Application Attachment B: Site Location Map Attachment C: Project Site Plan Attachment D: Proposed/Modified Ground Lease Attachment E: Parcel Merger Documentation Attachment F: CEQA Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment F.1: CEQA IS/MND Response to Comments

The City of Red Bluff is an Equal Opportunity Provider

LANGLEY ROAD WWW.BUTLER-GROUP.ORG T. 530.222.5211 F. 530.226.3345 8837 AIRPORT RD. STE. A REDDING, CALIFORNIA 96002 ENGINEERING GROUP butler CIVIL STRUCTURAL SURVEYING

SITE PLAN APN 035-021-005 RED BLUFF, CALIFORNIA 905 LANGLEY ROAD PJ HELICOPTERS

LANGLEY ROAD S. JACKSON STREET JACKSON S. DATE APPROVED BY REVISIONS ISSUED FOR REVIEW DESIGN REVIEWSUBMITTAL (DR 2016-04) APN: 035-020-005 PARCEL A PER 12 PM 31 DATE 04/07/16 11/02/16 1 2 NO.

DATE ISSUED 04/07/16

SHEET NUMBER C-1

JOB NUMBER 15.294

CITY OF RED BLUFF PJ H ELICOPTERS H ANGER P ROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Prepared for:

CITY OF RED BLUFF 555 WASHINGTON STREET RED BLUFF, CA 96080

Prepared by:

140 INDEPENDENCE CIRCLE, SUITE C CHICO, CA 95973

FEBRUARY 2017

C ITY OF RED B LUFF PJ H ELICOPTERS H ANGER P ROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Prepared for:

CITY OF RED BLUFF 555 WASHINGTON STREET RED BLUFF, CA 96080

Prepared by:

MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 140 INDEPENDENCE CIRCLE, SUITE C CHICO, CA 95973

FEBRUARY 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction and Regulatory Guidance ...... 1.0-1 1.2 Lead Agency ...... 1.0-1 1.3 Purpose and Document Organization ...... 1.0-1 1.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...... 1.0-2

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Project Location ...... 3.0-1 3.2 Project Summary ...... 3.0-1 3.3 Project Characteristics ...... 3.0-1 3.4 Required Permits and Approvals ...... 3.0-2 3.5 Relationship of Project to Other Plans and Projects ...... 3.0-2

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 4.1 Aesthetics ...... 4.0-1 4.2 Agricutlure ...... 4.0-5 4.3 Air Quality ...... 4.0-7 4.4 Biological Resources ...... 4.0-13 4.5 Cultural Resources ...... 4.0-21 4.6 Geology and Soils ...... 4.0-25 4.7 Greenhouse Gases ...... 4.0-29 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 4.0-31 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 4.0-34 4.10 Land Use and Planning ...... 4.0-39 4.11 Mineral Resources ...... 4.0-40 4.12 Noise ...... 4.0-41 4.13 Population and Housing ...... 4.0-46 4.14 Public Services ...... 4.0-47 4.15 Recreation...... 4.0-49 4.16 Transportation/Traffic ...... 4.0-50 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 4.0-52 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 4.0-57

5.0 REFERENCES 5.1 Documents Referenced in Initial Study and/or Incorporated by Reference ...... 5.0-1

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration i TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES Table 4.3-1 Tehama County Air Pollution Control District Thresholds of Significance ...... 4.0-9 Table 4.3-2 Construction-Related Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions (Pounds per Day) ...... 4.0-10 Table 4.3-3 Long-Term Operational Emissions (Pounds per Day) ...... 4.0-10 Table 4.7-1 Construction and Operational GHG Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) ...... 4.0-30 Table 4.12-1 Noise Measurements ...... 4.0-42 Table 4.12-2 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ...... 4.0-43 Table 4.12-3 Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ...... 4.0-44 Table 4.17-1 Water Supply and Demand ...... 4.0-53 Table 4.17-2 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Used by the TCSWMA ...... 4.0-54

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.0-1 Regional Vicinity Map...... 3.0-3 Figure 3.0-2 Project Location Map ...... 3.0-5 Figure 3.0-3 Project Site Plan ...... 3.0-7 Figure 4.1-1 Photometric ...... 4.0-3 Figure 4.4-1 Survey Area...... 4.0-19

APPENDICES Appendix 4.3 – Air Quality Appendix 4.4 – Biological/Wetland Screening Report Appendix 4.7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE

This document is an Initial Study, with supporting environmental studies, which concludes that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document for the proposed PJ Helicopters Hanger Project. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.

An initial study is conducted by a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared if an initial study indicates that the proposed project under review may have a potentially significant impact on the environment which cannot be initially avoided or mitigated to a level that is less than significant. A negative declaration may be prepared if the lead agency also prepares a written statement describing the reasons why the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore why it does not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a negative declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:

a) The initial study shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and (2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

If revisions are adopted in the proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b), including the adoption of mitigation measures included in this document, a mitigated negative declaration is prepared.

1.2 LEAD AGENCY

The lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over a proposed project. Where two or more public agencies will be involved with a project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15051 provides criteria for identifying the lead agency. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15051(b)(1), “the lead agency will normally be the agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose.” Based on the criteria above, the City of Red Bluff is the lead agency for the proposed PJ Helicopters Hanger Project.

1.3 PURPOSE AND DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

The purpose of this Initial Study is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. This document is divided into the following sections:

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction – This section introduces and describes the purpose and organization of the document.

2.0 Project Information – This section provides general information regarding the proposed project, including the project title, lead agency and address, contact person, brief description of the project location, General Plan land use designation, and zoning district, identification of surrounding land uses, and identification of other public agencies whose review, approval, and/or permits may be required. Also listed in this section is a checklist of the environmental factors that are potentially affected by the project.

3.0 Project Description – This section describes the proposed project in detail.

4.0 Environmental Checklist – This section describes the environmental setting and overview for each of the environmental subject areas, evaluates a range of impacts classified as “no impact,” “less than significant impact,” “less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated,” and “potentially significant impact” in response to the environmental checklist.

5.0 References – This section identifies documents, websites, people, and other sources consulted during the preparation of this Initial Study.

1.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Section 4.0, Environmental Checklist, is the analysis portion of this Initial Study. The section provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the project. Section 4.0 includes 18 environmental issue subsections, including CEQA Mandatory Findings of Significance. The environmental issue subsections, numbered 1 through 18, consist of the following:

1. Aesthetics 10. Land Use and Planning 2. Agriculture and Forest Resources 11. Mineral Resources 3. Air Quality 12. Noise 4. Biological Resources 13. Population and Housing 5. Cultural Resources 14. Public Services 6. Geology and Soils 15. Recreation 7. Greenhouse Gases 16. Transportation/Traffic 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 17. Utilities and Service Systems 9. Hydrology and Water Quality 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance

Each environmental issue subsection is organized in the following manner:

The Overview summarizes the existing conditions at the regional, subregional, and local levels, as appropriate, and identifies applicable plans and technical information for the particular issue area.

The Discussion of Impacts provides a detailed discussion of each of the environmental issue checklist questions. The level of significance for each topic is determined by considering the predicted magnitude of the impact. Four levels of impact significance are evaluated in this Initial Study:

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 1.0-2 1.0 INTRODUCTION

No Impact: No project-related impact to the environment would occur with project development.

Less Than Significant Impact: The impact would not result in a substantial adverse change in the environment. This impact level does not require mitigation measures.

Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated: The impact may have a “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382). However, the incorporation of mitigation measures that are specified after analysis would reduce the project-related impact to a less than significant level.

Potentially Significant Impact: The impact is “potentially significant” but mitigation measures cannot be immediately suggested or the effectiveness of potential mitigation measures cannot be determined with certainty, because more in-depth analysis of the issue and potential impact is needed. In such cases, an EIR is required.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0-3 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This page is intentionally left blank

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 1.0-4

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project title: PJ Helicopters Hanger Project

2. Lead agency name and address: City of Red Bluff 555 Washington Street Red Bluff, CA 96080

3. Contact person and phone number: Scott Friend, 530-527-2605 ext. 3059

4. Project location: 903 Langley Way1 Red Bluff, CA 96080 Latitude 40º08′43″N, Longitude 122º14′31″W Section 31, Township 27N, Range 3W Mount Diablo Meridian (APN: 035-021-004)

5. Project sponsor’s name and address: City of Red Bluff 555 Washington Street Red Bluff, CA 96080

6. General Plan designation: Public Service (PS)

7. Zoning: Airport (AV)

8. Description of project: The project site is a vacant, undeveloped 2.66-acre site, directly adjacent to the existing developed PJ Helicopters facility. The proposed project will consist of a new ±31,905-square-foot steel building, which will provide additional aircraft hangar and maintenance space, office space, storage areas, restroom facilities, and employee exercise facilities at the existing PJ Helicopters facility. The project will also include the development of new parking facilities, landscaped areas, a stormwater retention pond, fire hydrants, and the extension of city water infrastructure from existing facilities on S. Jackson Street. The project is for the provision of additional hangar space to accommodate existing helicopters and maintenance activities and will not result in any direct increase in flight operations or employees at the existing facility

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: All lands immediately adjacent to the project site is vacant and undeveloped, with the exception of the existing PJ Helicopters facilities directly west of the site. The proposed project site is located west of S. Jackson Street and approximately 0.5 mile east of the Red Bluff Municipal Airport runway. Red Bank Creek is approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the site at its closest point. The nearest residential uses are located approximately 0.3 mile northeast of the site. Light industrial uses are located 0.4 mile north of the site.

1 Langley Way is also known as Langley Road

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0-1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

10. Other public agencies whose approval may be required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

• Tehama County Air Pollution Control District – Construction Permit

• State Water Resources Control Board – Construction General Permit

• Federal Aviation Administration

• U.S. Air Force

11. Environmental factors potentially affected:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “potentially significant impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Agriculture and Forest Aesthetics Air Quality Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Hydrology and Water Greenhouse Gases Materials Quality Land Use and Mineral Resources Noise Planning Population and Public Services Recreation Housing Utilities and Service Mandatory Findings of Transportation/Traffic Systems Significance

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 2.0-2 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

12. Determination: (to be completed by the lead agency)

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

City of Red Bluff Richard Crabtree Lead Agency

City Manager Title

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0-3 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

This page is intentionally left blank

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 2.0-4

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 PROJECT LOCATION

The proposed project site is located adjacent to the existing PJ Helicopters facilities at 903 Langley Way in Red Bluff, California. The project site is 0.2 mile east of S. Jackson Street and approximately 0.5 mile east of the Red Bluff Municipal Airport runway. Specifically, the project site is located on Butte County Assessor’s Parcel Number 035-021-004, Section 31, Township 27N, Range 3W Mount Diablo Meridian (Latitude 40º08′43″N, Longitude 122º14′31″W).

The location of the project site is illustrated in Figure 3.0-1, Regional Vicinity.

3.2 PROJECT SUMMARY

The proposed project is located on City-owned property on the west side of S. Jackson Street and south of Langley Way within Red Bluff Municipal Airport lands (see Figure 3.0-2, Project Location). The project applicant, PJ Helicopters, will lease the project site from the City. The lease agreement requires approval from the Red Bluff City Council.

The project site is located directly east of the existing PJ Helicopters facilities on Langley Way. The project is for the provision of additional hangar space to accommodate existing helicopters and maintenance activities and will not result in any direct increase in flight operations or employees at the existing facilities. The project site is located in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone X, outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding.

3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

The additions and improvements to the PJ Helicopter site would occur on vacant undeveloped land adjacent to the existing PJ Helicopters facilities. The site is relatively flat with an approximate elevation gain of 5 feet over the entire site. The site is located approximately 1,100 feet west of S. Jackson Street and immediate south of Langley Way. The project site is approximately 2.66 acres.

As shown in Figure 3.0-3, Project Site Plan, the proposed project will consist of the following:

• A new ±31,905-square-foot, two-story steel building, including the following components:

o Office space o Records office and storage areas o Parts office and storage areas o Clean room o Avionics o Weight room o Racquetball court o Two aircraft hangars and maintenance space o Multiple restroom facilities o Multipurpose room o Utility room • An exterior break area

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hangar Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0-1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

• New parking facilities (36 paved spaces and 10 graveled spaced for large trucks) • Landscaping areas • A stormwater retention pond • On-site wastewater system including a septic tank and leach field • Fire hydrants • The extension of city water infrastructure from existing facilities on S. Jackson Street

3.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS

• Land lease agreement from the City of Red Bluff • Building Permits from the City of Red Bluff • Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) • Construction Permit from the Tehama County Air Pollution Control District (TCAPCD) 3.5 RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECT TO OTHER PLANS AND PROJECTS

CITY OF RED BLUFF GENERAL PLAN

The City’s General Plan is the fundamental document governing land use development in the city. The City of Red Bluff adopted elements of the General Plan as follows: Circulation Element (1991), Housing Element (2014), and Land Use, Natural Environment, Noise, and Safety Elements (1993).

The City’s General Plan includes numerous goals and policies pertaining to sustainability; land use; circulation; community design; downtown; economic development; housing; parks, public facilities, and services; open space and environment; cultural resources and historic preservation; safety; and noise. The proposed project will be required to abide by all applicable goals and policies included in the City’s adopted General Plan.

CITY OF RED BLUFF ZONING ORDINANCE

As identified in the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 25, Zoning, the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to implement the policies of the City’s General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the municipal boundaries of the city. The Zoning Ordinance was adopted to protect and to promote the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of residents and businesses in the city.

TEHAMA COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN

The Tehama County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) provides the framework for land uses in the vicinity of Red Bluff Municipal Airport (TCALUC 2015). The plan includes policies to articulate the procedures to be used by the Tehama County Airport Land Use Commission and the City of Red Bluff in airport land use compatibility review requirements. Because the proposed project is located adjacent to Red Bluff Municipal Airport, it is subject to the ALUCP’s review requirements.

PJ Helicopters Hangar Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 3.0-2 Tehama County

Map Detail T:\_GIS\Tehama_County\MXDs\PJ_Helicopters\Figure1 RegionalVicinity.mxd (1/27/2017)

Legend

Project Site

Source: ESRI streetmap.

1,000 0 1,000 FIGURE 3.0-1 Feet Regional Vicinity

Kimball Rd

Airport Blvd

Schwab St

BidwellSt

Vista Way

Trainor St Trainor Ford Ford St

Red Bluff HornbeckSt Municipal Airport T:\_GIS\Tehama_County\MXDs\PJ_Helicopters\Figure2 Project Location.mxd (1/27/2017)

SouthJackson St

PalmerDr Crosby Ln

Spyglass Dr

Langley Rd

Paskenta Rd

Rawson Rd Red Bank Ave

Legend Pimentel Rd Project Site

Source: ESRI.

0 500 1,000 FIGURE 3.0-2 FEET Project Location

T:\_CS\Work\Red Bluff, City of\PJ Helicopters_157991\Figures Bluff, T:\_CS\Work\Red

SITE PLAN APN 035-021-005 RED BLUFF, CALIFORNIA 905 LANGLEY ROAD

PJ HELICOPTERS S. JACKSON STREET JACKSON S. DATE APPROVED BY REVISIONS DESIGN REVIEWSUBMITTAL (DR 2016-04) ISSUED FOR REVIEW DATE 11/02/16 04/07/16 2 1 NO.

DATE ISSUED 04/07/16

SHEET NUMBER C-1

JOB NUMBER Source: Butler Engineering Group; 2016 15.294

FIGURE 3.0-3 Not To Scale Project Site Plan

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.1 AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic

vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock

outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

OVERVIEW

The project site is located in a relatively undeveloped area of southern Red Bluff. The project proposes the development of a two-story 31,905-square-foot steel building painted to match the existing PJ Helicopters facilities. The building would have a non-reflective metal roof and paint to reduce daytime glare. All building exterior lighting would be shielded to reduce nighttime lighting and sky glow impacts per City standards. With the exception of the existing PJ Helicopters facilities, no other development is adjacent to the project site. Located on a small rise, the project site is surrounded by open grassland. The nearest residential uses are approximately 0.3 mile to the northeast of the project site.

Views available from the project site include distant views of the Sierra Nevada range to the east and the Coastal Range to the west, views of light industrial and aircraft-related uses to the north, and open grassland to the south. The City of Red Bluff General Plan does not specifically address scenic views, viewsheds, aesthetics, or visual quality.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS

a) No Impact. Scenic vistas include natural features such as topography, watercourses, rock outcrops, natural vegetation, and man-made alterations to the landscape. The project site is not located in an area identified as a scenic vista in the Red Bluff General Plan. Furthermore, the City does not identify any scenic vistas in its General Plan. Therefore, the project would have no impact in this area. b) No Impact. Tehama County does not have any state designated scenic highways. State Routes 89 and 35 in the easternmost portion of the county are eligible for scenic highway status, but they have not been formally designated as such. No state designated scenic highways exist on the site or in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would have no impact on scenic highway resources.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hangar Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

c) Less Than Significant Impact. The area adjacent to the project site includes vacant grassland and the existing PJ Helicopters facilities consisting of a warehouse building, hangar and office building, landing pad area, and parking lot.

The proposed project would result in the construction of a new two-story hangar building designed to resemble the existing hangar structure in paint color and size. Additional parking facilities are also a part of the project. These project elements may result in a change to the visual character of the site by increasing the number of urban structures on otherwise vacant land. However, the construction of these facilities would not substantially degrade the character of the site, as the new facilities are consistent with existing development in the area. The project would have a less than significant impact. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in a new building and parking area, both of which may result in an increase of artificial light and glare into the existing environment. Potential sources of light and glare include external building lighting, parking lot lighting, security lighting, building windows, and reflective building materials.

All new lighting from the project is required to be shielded and directed so as to not allow light to penetrate off-site. A photometric site plan (Figure 4.1-1) was completed for the project. This plan illustrates the illumination from the proposed lighting both on- and off-site. As indicated in the photometric site plan, the proposed lighting would not illuminate areas off-site.

The new building would be painted to match the existing PJ Helicopters facilities. No bare metal surfaces that may result in glare are proposed. The roof would be constructed of non- reflective material. The proposed windows are scattered, and no single large bank of windows is included. This design would reduce the potential for window glare. The impact would be less than significant.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.0 0.2 0.0

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.3 3.4 3.9 2.5 0.3 0.0

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.3 2.6 5.0 5.9 3.5 1.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.9 2.7 4.8 6.3 4.6 0.3 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.9 3.2 5.4 6.1 4.0 2.5 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.7 4.5 5.5 3.9 0.4 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 2.1 2.8 3.9 4.3 3.4 2.5 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.5 3.3 3.4 2.0 0.2 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.8 2.4 1.1 0.2 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.6 1.4 2.3 2.3 1.7 1.8 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.8 2.2 3.0 2.9 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.8 2.3 2.8 2.4 1.2 0.2 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.2 1.9 2.1 2.5 0.5 1.4 2.8 2.4 1.4 1.5 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.9 2.7 4.1 4.3 2.7 1.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.4 3.6 2.1 0.3 0.0

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 2.1 1.2 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.8 2.5 3.9 4.0 2.4 1.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.5 2.1 2.9 4.7 5.8 4.2 0.4 0.0

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.3 3.4 3.9 2.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.6 1.2 2.9 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.5 2.0 2.7 2.7 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.9 4.9 6.2 4.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.3 2.6 5.0 5.9 3.5 1.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.9 2.7 4.8 6.3 4.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.9 1.2 3.0 2.2 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.7 4.1 2.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.9 3.2 5.4 6.1 4.0 2.5 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.7 4.5 5.5 3.9 0.4 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.1 2.7 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.9 2.4 3.0 2.6 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 2.1 2.8 3.9 4.3 3.4 2.5 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.5 3.3 3.4 2.0 0.2 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.0 2.5 2.1 1.9 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.9 2.4 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.8 2.4 1.1 0.2 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.1 2.7 2.2 1.9 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.3 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.6 1.4 2.3 2.3 1.7 1.8 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.8 2.2 3.0 2.9 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.8 2.3 2.8 2.4 1.2 0.2 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.1 3.2 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.3 3.0 4.6 5.4 3.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.2 1.9 2.1 2.5 0.5 1.4 2.8 2.4 1.4 1.5 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.9 2.7 4.1 4.3 2.7 1.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.4 3.6 2.1 0.3 0.0 T:\_CS\Work\Red Bluff, City of\PJ Helicopters_157991\Figures Bluff, T:\_CS\Work\Red

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.3 1.2 3.3 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.2 1.6 2.2 3.0 3.1 2.2 1.7 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.5 3.2 5.3 6.8 4.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 2.1 1.2 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.4 1.8 2.5 3.9 4.0 2.4 1.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.5 2.1 2.9 4.7 5.8 4.2 0.4 0.0

0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.10.0 0.10.1 0.20.1 0.50.2 1.00.5 1.01.5 1.52.4 2.6 1.21.1 2.92.7 2.12.3 1.82.0 1.41.5 1.31.3 1.51.8 2.02.72.7 4.22.7 4.42.0 2.81.5 1.91.0 1.30.8 1.10.8 1.20.9 1.41.2 1.61.7 2.12.0 2.92.4 4.92.9 6.23.9 4.54.3 0.42.7 0.00.2 0.0

0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.10.0 0.10.1 0.20.1 0.60.2 1.00.6 1.01.3 1.41.8 1.9 1.21.0 3.02.7 2.22.3 1.82.0 1.31.6 1.11.4 1.21.8 1.42.61.6 3.91.6 4.21.4 2.61.1 1.90.9 1.40.8 1.30.8 1.40.9 1.61.2 1.62.0 2.12.2 2.72.4 3.72.5 4.12.9 2.52.4 0.31.2 0.00.2 0.0

0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.10.0 0.10.1 0.20.1 0.50.2 0.90.6 1.11.0 1.21.3 1.5 1.11.2 2.73.3 2.12.4 1.82.0 1.41.6 1.11.4 1.11.7 1.22.21.3 2.91.3 2.91.2 2.31.0 1.80.9 1.50.8 1.50.8 1.71.0 2.11.2 1.62.4 1.92.7 2.42.6 3.02.4 2.62.0 1.31.4 0.20.6 0.00.1 0.0

0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.10.0 0.10.1 0.20.1 0.50.3 0.70.6 0.9 1.11.1 1.5 1.01.1 2.53.2 2.12.4 1.92.0 1.41.6 1.11.4 1.11.6 1.21.8 1.3 2.01.3 1.91.2 1.81.0 1.60.9 1.50.9 1.50.9 1.91.0 2.51.3 1.63.1 2.03.6 2.43.2 2.92.4 2.41.5 1.10.9 0.20.4 0.00.1 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.1 2.7 2.2 1.9 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.3 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 2.8 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.6 2.1 2.9 4.7 5.6 4.2 2.2 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.1 3.2 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.3 3.0 4.6 5.4 3.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.0 2.5 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.5 2.1 3.0 4.8 7.2 4.6 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.3 1.2 3.3 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.2 1.6 2.2 3.0 3.1 2.2 1.7 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.5 3.2 5.3 6.8 4.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.0 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.7 3.0 2.8 2.3 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.3 3.3 4.0 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.4 1.1 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.8 2.7 4.2 4.4 2.8 1.9 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.9 3.9 4.3 2.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.3 1.0 2.9 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.7 3.7 5.0 4.3 2.8 2.0 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.8 1.0 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.8 2.6 3.9 4.2 2.6 1.9 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.9 2.4 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.5 2.3 0.9 2.6 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.4 4.3 6.6 5.1 2.9 1.6 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.2 3.3 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.7 2.2 2.9 2.9 2.3 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.0 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.5 0.6 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.4 3.0 5.0 3.7 1.7 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 3.2 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.9 2.5 3.1 3.6 3.2 2.4 1.5 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.4 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.1 2.8 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.6 2.1 2.9 4.7 5.6 4.2 2.2 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.0 2.5 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.5 2.1 3.0 4.8 7.2 4.6 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.0 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.7 3.0 2.8 2.3 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.3 3.3 4.0 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.3 1.0 2.9 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.7 3.7 5.0 4.3 2.8 2.0 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.5 2.3 0.9 2.6 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.4 4.3 6.6 5.1 2.9 1.6 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.5 0.6 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.4 3.0 5.0 3.7 1.7 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.4 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: North Valley Building Systems; 2016, Agri Electric; 2016

FIGURE 4.1-1 Not To Scale Photometric

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526 and by Government Code Section 51104(f)), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use?

OVERVIEW

The California Department of Conservation (DOC) manages the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), which identifies and maps significant farmland. Farmland is classified using a system of five categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land. The classification of farmland as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance is based on the suitability of soils for agricultural production, as determined by a soil survey conducted by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The California Department of Conservation manages an interactive website, the California Important Farmland Finder. This website identifies the project site as being outside of the soil survey area.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) No Impact. The California Department of Conservation (DOC) (2014) identifies the project area as Grazing Land. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. There would be no impact.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-5 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

b) No Impact. The DOC identifies Williamson Act contract lands in Tehama County, including any areas surrounding the project site. All areas in Red Bluff are identified as Urban and Built-Up Land (DOC 2011). The project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract, nor are any surrounding properties. The site is zoned Airport (AV) in the City of Red Bluff Zoning Ordinance. This zoning district was not intended for agricultural uses. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not have an impact on zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c) No Impact. The project site contains no forest or timber resources and is not zoned for forestland protection or timber production. The project would have no impact on any lands with such zoning. d) No Impact. The project site contains no forest or timber resources. The project would have no impact to such resources. e) No Impact. No project features would necessitate or result in the conversion of off-site farmland. The entirety of the proposed project would occur on the existing 2.66-acre site. The project site is not located adjacent to or in the vicinity of any farmland and would have no impact.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-6 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.3 AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute

substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

OVERVIEW

The proposed project is located in Tehama County, which is in the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin (NSVAB). The NSVAB consists of a total of seven counties: Sutter, Yuba, Colusa, Butte, Glenn, Tehama, and Shasta. The NSVAB is bounded on the north and west by the Coastal Range and on the east by the southern portion of the Cascade Mountain Range and the northern portion of the Sierra Nevada range. These mountain ranges reach heights in excess of 6,000 feet above mean sea level, with individual peaks rising much higher. The mountains form a substantial physical barrier to locally created pollution as well as that transported northward on prevailing winds from the Sacramento metropolitan area.

Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. The six criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas.

Tehama County has been designated an attainment or unclassified (data insufficient to support any designation) area for all federal ambient air quality standards. However, the county is designated a nonattainment area for state ozone and coarse particulate matter (PM10) standards. The county is designated an attainment or unclassified area for all other state ambient air quality standards (CARB 2016).

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-7 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

The regional air quality regulating authority is the Tehama County Air Pollution Control District (TCAPCD). The TCAPCD monitors air quality in the county and serves as the lead agency responsible for implementing and enforcing federal, state, and Tehama County air quality regulations. Air pollution sources in the county include seasonal burning of agricultural fields, dust from agricultural operations, and motor vehicle emissions.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under state law, the California Clean Air Act requires an air quality attainment plan (AQAP) to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment with regard to the federal and state ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.

The North Sacramento Valley Planning Area (NSVPA) 2015 Air Quality Attainment Plan is the most recent air quality planning document covering Tehama County. SIPs are a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as monitoring, modeling, permitting, etc.), district rules, state regulations, and federal controls describing how the state will attain ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter. State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the State Implementation Plan. Local air districts prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. The NSVPA 2015 Air Quality Attainment Plan includes forecast reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions (ozone precursors) for the entire NSVPA region through the year 2020. These emissions are not appropriated by county or municipality.

Criteria for determining consistency with the 2015 Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) are defined by the following indicators:

• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQAP.

• Consistency Criterion No. 2: The proposed project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQAP or increments based on the years of the project buildout phase.

The air quality emission projections and emission reduction strategies in the AQAP are based on the Tehama County Air Pollution Control District’s countywide air pollutant emissions projection inventory. The TCAPCD’s countywide mobile and stationary source emissions projections are derived from Tehama County growth projections, which inform population and vehicle use trends. The latest growth forecasts are defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. A project that proposes development consistent with the growth anticipated in a general plan would be consistent with the AQAP.

The project is consistent with the Red Bluff General Plan land use designation (Public Service) and thus is consistent with the regional growth anticipated by TCAPCD in the Air Quality Attainment Plan. Furthermore, as discussed under Issue b), construction and operation

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-8 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

emissions would not exceed TCAPCD thresholds. As a result, the project would not result in violations or affect air quality attainment status in the air basin. The impact would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project could result in air quality impacts during project construction and operation. The TCAPCD has established thresholds under CEQA for the assessment of air quality impacts. These thresholds of significance are summarized in Table 4.3-1.

TABLE 4.3-1 TEHAMA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Emissions (pounds per day) Threshold NOX ROG PM10

Level “A” Thresholds ≤25 ≤25 ≤80 Level “B” Thresholds >25 >25 >80 Level “C” Thresholds >137 >137 >137 Source: TCAOCD 2015, p. 2-2

If a project has emissions that are less than the Level A thresholds, only feasible standard mitigation measures are required. If a project has emissions that exceed the Level A thresholds but are below Level C thresholds, the project applicant must apply all feasible mitigation measures for construction and/or operation from the lists of recommended standard mitigation measures and appropriate best available mitigation measures. If a project has emissions that exceed the Level B thresholds with all feasible mitigation measures incorporated, an environmental impact report is recommended. Additionally, if Level C thresholds are exceeded, an environmental impact report is recommended.

Construction Emissions

The project would generate short-term emissions from construction activities such as site grading, asphalt paving, building construction, and architectural coatings (e.g., painting). Common construction emissions include fugitive dust from soil disturbance, portable auxiliary equipment, worker commute trips, and fuel combustion from mobile, heavy-duty, diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment. During construction, fugitive dust, the dominant source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, would be generated when wheels or blades disturb surface materials. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby. Off-road construction equipment is often diesel-powered and can be a substantial source of NOx emissions, in addition to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Worker commute trips and architectural coatings are dominant sources of ROG emissions. Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the project are summarized in Table 4.3-2.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-9 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

TABLE 4.3-2 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED CRITERIA POLLUTANT AND PRECURSOR EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY)

Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 2017 3.48 23.80 18.28 0.03 7.07 4.07 2018 3.02 21.44 17.25 0.03 1.64 1.26 Maximum Daily Emissions 3.48 23.80 18.28 0.03 7.07 4.07 TCAPCD Level A Thresholds 25 25 None None 80 None Exceed Threshold? No No N/A N/A No N/A

Source: CalEEMod, version 2016.3.1. See Appendix 4.3 for daily emission model outputs.

As shown in Table 4.3-2, construction-generated emissions associated with the proposed project would be below the TCAPCD Level A significance thresholds. Therefore, the construction impact is less than significant.

Operational Emissions

Although the proposed project would not result in an increase in employees or aircraft operations, area source and energy usage from the new building would contribute to overall increases in emissions. Predicted maximum daily emissions are summarized in Table 4.3-3.

TABLE 4.3-3 LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY)

Source ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5

Summer Emissions Area Source 0.71 0 0.01 0 0 0 Energy Use 0.02 0.16 0.13 0 0.01 0.01 Mobile Source 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0.73 0.16 0.14 0 0.01 0.01 TCAPCD Level A Thresholds 25 25 None None 80 None Exceed Daily Threshold? No No N/A N/A No N/A Winter Emissions Area Source 0.71 0 0.01 0 0 0 Energy Use 0.02 0.16 0.13 0 0.01 0.01 Mobile Source 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0.73 0.16 0.14 0 0.01 0.01 TCAPCD Level A Thresholds 25 25 None None 80 None Exceed Daily Threshold? No No N/A N/A No N/A Source: CalEEMod, version 2016.3.1. See Appendix 4.3 for daily emission model outputs.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-10 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

As shown in Table 4.3-3, operational daily emissions associated with the project would not exceed the TCAPCD Level A significance thresholds. Therefore, the operational impact is less than significant.

c) Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above, Tehama County is designated a nonattainment area for state ozone and PM10 standards. Due to the region’s nonattainment status, if project- generated emissions of ROG, NOx, or CO (ozone precursors) or PM10 exceed the long-term thresholds, then the project’s cumulative impacts would be considered significant. As discussed in Issue b), operational significance thresholds would not be surpassed; this results in operational air quality impacts that are considered less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive land uses are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population who are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.

Air Toxics Generated During Construction Activities

All land immediately adjacent to the project site is vacant and undeveloped, with the exception of the existing PJ Helicopters facilities directly west of the site. The nearest residential uses are located approximately 0.3 mile northeast of the site. Sources of construction-related air toxics potentially affecting these sensitive receptors include off-road diesel-powered equipment. Construction would result in the generation of diesel particulate matter (diesel PM) emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for grading, paving, and other construction activities. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to toxic air contaminant emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.

The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic and would occur over several locations isolated from one another. The duration of exposure would be short, and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Additionally, construction activities would occur in an area of less than 5 acres. Construction projects contained in a site of such size to represent less than significant health risk impacts due to (1) limitations on the off-road diesel equipment able to operate and thus a reduced amount of generated diesel PM, (2) the reduced amount of dust-generating ground disturbance possible compared to larger construction sites, and (3) the reduced duration of construction activities compared to the development of larger sites. Furthermore, construction would be subject to and would comply with California regulations limiting the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than 5 minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable diesel PM emissions. For these reasons, diesel PM generated by construction activities, in and of itself, would not be expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of air toxics. Impacts would be less than significant.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-11 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Air Toxics Generated During Project Operations

As previously mentioned, the proposed project would not result in an increase in employees, vehicular trips, or aircraft operations. Therefore, operational activities would not be expected to expose sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of air toxics, and impacts would be less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, the proposed project presents the potential for generation of objectionable odors in the form of diesel exhaust in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, these emissions will rapidly dissipate and be diluted by the atmosphere downwind of the emission sources.

Major operational sources of odor-related complaints by the general public commonly include wastewater treatment facilities, landfill disposal facilities, food processing facilities, agricultural activities, and various industrial activities such as petroleum refineries, chemical and fiberglass manufacturing, painting/coating operations, feedlots/dairies, composting facilities, landfills, and transfer stations. The project does not include any of these land uses or similar land uses. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-12 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or

regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited

to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community

conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

OVERVIEW

As a part of the proposed project, a biological/wetland screening report was completed by ENPLAN. This document is included as Appendix 4.4. The report identified a 12.2-acre survey area, which includes the project site and surrounding areas. See Figure 4.4-1 for the survey area.

The report used various records to obtain information on reported occurrences of special-status species in the project vicinity. Record reviews for this evaluation consisted of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), critical habitat GIS data maintained by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and in-house biological records.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-13 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

ENPLAN conducted biological surveys of the site on June 7, August 5, and August 22, 2016. According to ENPLAN, some of the special-status species potentially occurring in the area would have been evident at the time the fieldwork was conducted. The potential presence of species not readily identifiable during the survey was determined on the basis of observed habitat characteristics. The survey was conducted too late in the season to detect a number of annual plants that are expected to occur on the site. However, the survey was sufficient to determine the potential for special-status plant species to be present.

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

Special-status plant and wildlife species are those that are afforded special recognition by federal, state, or local resource agencies or organizations. Special-status species are of relatively limited distribution and generally require specialized habitat conditions. Special-status species are defined as:

• Listed, proposed, or candidate for listing under the state or federal Endangered Species Act

• Protected under other regulations (e.g., local policies, Migratory Bird Treaty Act)

• California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern and California Fully Protected Species

• Listed as species of concern (List 1B, 2, or 3 plants) by the California Native Plant Society

• Species that receive consideration during environmental review under CEQA

The potential for special-status species to occur within the project site or be adversely impacted by the proposed project was evaluated based on the site conditions and the project description. The report determined that the plant communities and wildlife habitats in the study area are limited to annual grassland. The grassland consists of a dense stand of annual grasses extending to a height of about 1.5 feet. Annual grasslands provide moderate habitat values for wildlife (ENPLAN 2016a, p. 2).

Only one feature potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was observed in the study area boundary. This consists of the south fork of Grasshopper Creek, which flows under S. Jackson Street near the northern terminus of the study area. Several vernal pools/swales were observed on adjoining lands. Three vernal pools were observed on the north side of Langley Way. In addition, several pools/swales were observed in the southwestern quadrant of the Langley Way/S. Jackson intersection, roughly 600 feet east of the proposed hangar site. See Figure 4.4-1.

The records search identified the following special-status plant species known to occur within a 5-mile radius of the study area: Henderson’s bentgrass, silky cryptantha, dwarf downingia, legenere, Red Bluff dwarf rush, Ahart’s dwarf rush, and Ahart’s paronychia.

The records search also identified the following special-status animal species known to occur within a 5-mile radius of the study area: bank swallow, burrowing owl, Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, pallid bat, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, western red bat, western yellow-billed cuckoo, white-tailed kite, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler. None of these special-status animal species have been previously reported in the study area.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-14 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Additional special-status fish species not reported in the CNDDB records search, but known to utilize the Sacramento River and its tributaries, include Central Valley steelhead, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon, and Central Valley late-fall-run Chinook salmon.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS

a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site provides potentially suitable habitat for the burrowing owl, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Although a number of the other special-status wildlife species noted above could potentially forage in the area, the site does not provide suitable roosting/nesting/denning habitat, so it is unlikely that these species would be adversely affected by project implementation. Implementation of standard erosion control and spill prevention practices would ensure that effects on downstream aquatic species would be negligible.

Although burrowing owls are occasionally reported in the general Red Bluff vicinity, field evaluation showed that the project site does not support any burrows suitable for the owls. Several vernal pools/swales occur in the immediate vicinity of the project study area and have a high potential to support vernal pool tadpole shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4.1 and MM 4.4.2 would prevent impacts to these species as a result of retention basin construction.

b) No Impact. The project site is located in an area of vacant, undeveloped annual grassland. No creeks, rivers, or other waterways exist on the site. The installation of water lines from the existing city lines would require crossing the south fork of Grasshopper Creek. A large box culvert conveys the stream flow under the street. The stream bottom is covered by an asphalt pad that extends approximately 30 feet upstream of the box culvert. The proposed water line may be attached to the box culvert or may be installed in a trench excavated within the asphalt pad. No riparian habitats or natural communities are located in this area. As such, no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would be impacted due to project implementation.

c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project would be located on a developed site. As discussed in the biological/wetland screening report, only one feature potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE was observed in the study area boundary— the south fork of Grasshopper Creek, which flows under S. Jackson Street near the northern terminus of the study area. A large box culvert conveys the stream flow under the street. The stream bottom is covered by an asphalt pad that extends approximately 30 feet upstream of the box culvert. The proposed water line may be attached to the box culvert or may be installed in a trench excavated within the asphalt pad. In either case, no significant biological/wetland impacts would occur, provided that work occurs in the dry season. No other wetlands or other jurisdictional waters of the United States are located on the project site. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4.3 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

d) No Impact. The site does not provide nursery sites for wildlife, large trees, or water features that would be conducive to function as a corridor for migratory wildlife. No streams or waterways are located on the project site. The project site is surrounding by large areas of vacant open land; as such, construction of the project would not impede migratory wildlife. The project would have no impact on the movement of wildlife.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-15 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

e) No Impact. The City of Red Bluff has a tree protection ordinance (Red Bluff Municipal Code Chapter 23A) relating to the planting, care, removal, and maintenance of trees, plants, and shrubs within or adjacent to public streets and rights-of-way, and heritage trees and mature native trees located within the city. No trees or shrubs exist on the project site. Therefore, this ordinance does not apply, and the project would have no impact related to local policies and ordinances. f) No Impact. No adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan applies in the project area (CDFW 2015).

MITIGATION MEASURES

MM 4.4.1 For the stormwater retention basin, a minimum 50-foot setback from the wetlands to the east and west shall be provided. A permanent fence shall be established at the outer edge of the setback to exclude entry into the pools from the PJ Helicopters site. The fencing shall be in place prior to construction of the retention basin to prevent possible inadvertent damage to the wetlands during construction.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to any site grading and throughout construction

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Red Bluff Planning Department

MM 4.4.2 The stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) to be developed by the project applicant to comply with the terms of both the EPA’s Stormwater General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Construction Activities and the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities shall include, but are not limited to, the following best management practices (BMPs):

• If excavation occurs during the rainy season, stormwater runoff from the construction area shall be regulated through a stormwater management/erosion control plan that shall include temporary on-site silt traps and/or basins with multiple discharge points to natural drainages and energy dissipaters. Stockpiles of loose material shall be covered and runoff diverted away from exposed soil material. If work stops due to rain, a positive grading away from slopes shall be provided to carry the surface runoff to areas where flow would be controlled, such as temporary silt basins. Sediment basins/traps shall be located and operated to minimize the amount of off-site sediment transport. Any trapped sediment shall be removed from the basin or trap and placed at a suitable location on-site, away from concentrated flows, or removed to an approved disposal site.

• Temporary erosion control measures (such as fiber rolls, staked straw bales, detention basins, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover) shall be provided until perennial revegetation or landscaping is established to minimize discharge of sediment into nearby waterways.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-16 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

• No disturbed surfaces shall be left without erosion control measures in place during the spring and winter months.

• Erosion protection shall be provided on all cut-and-fill slopes and stockpiled soils. Revegetation shall be facilitated by mulching, hydroseeding, or other methods and shall be initiated as soon as possible after completion of grading and prior to the onset of the rainy season.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to any site grading and throughout construction

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Red Bluff Planning Department

MM 4.4.3 All construction activities for the installation of water services on S. Jackson Street shall occur during the dry season to prevent impacts to the south fork of Grasshopper Creek.

Timing/Implementation: Throughout the construction period

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Red Bluff Planning Department

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-17 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

This page is intentionally left blank.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-18 T:\_CS\Work\Red Bluff, City of\PJ Helicopters_157991\Figures

Source: ENPLAN

0 100 200 FIGURE 4.4-1 Not To Scale FEET Survey Area

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique

paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

OVERVIEW

A cultural resources inventory was completed for the proposed project by ENPLAN in August 2016. This report is not included in this Initial Study because of confidentially requirements for the protection of cultural resources. Disclosure of this information to the public may be in violation of both federal and state laws. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) includes an area of 12.2 acres surrounding the project site. Much of the following information was provided in this cultural resources survey report.

PREHISTORIC CONTEXT

Recent studies have suggested that Tehama County was first colonized by Native Americans at the end of the Pleistocene. This time period is generally associated with the Western Clovis Tradition and dates to around 13,500 years ago. Archaeological and linguistic evidence suggests that people of proto-Hokan language groups first inhabited the Sacramento Valley. They were then slowly displaced in various directions upon the arrival of Penutian speakers from the north, northeast, and south about 1,000 years ago.

ETHNOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

Kroeber ([1925] 1976), DuBois (1935), and Goldschmidt (1951, 1978) indicate that Cottonwood Creek was the ethnographically defined boundary separating the Wintu from the Nomlaki. However, Merriam (1966) indicates that Red Bank Creek, located south of Red Bluff, marked the northernmost extension of Nomlaki territory. Perhaps the best summary work and most in-depth analysis of this boundary discrepancy is provided by Johnson and Theodoratus (1982) in which they indicate the boundary was probably not static and "that the possibility exists that the area was used as a marginal resource area: a region occupied only on a seasonal basis, perhaps by segments of both Wintu and Nomlaki groups.” The project area is located in this intermediate area between Cottonwood Creek and Red Bank Creek; however, it is much closer to Nomlaki than Wintu territorial extents. Therefore, a brief ethnographic description will be provided for only the Nomlaki, as summarized from Goldschmidt (1978).

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-21 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Nomlaki daily life centered on a village comprised primarily of clans with a population of from 25 to 200 persons, under the leadership of a chieftain. Nomlaki subsistence strategies were semi- sedentary or transhumant, as members from each village periodically traveled to its own special resources procurement area during various seasons. Economic activities consisted of the collection of plant foods, fishing, and hunting. The main staples of their diet came from acorns, deer, small game, and fish. In addition to acorns, plant foods included grass seeds, tubers, fungi, nuts, berries, buckeye, and a variety of herbs.

As a result of European-American trapping expeditions that began during the 1820s and 1830s, a malaria epidemic took the lives of approximately 75 percent of Native Americans living along the Sacramento River.

HISTORIC CONTEXT

The first known recorded historic use of the region by European-Americans occurred during the late 1820s and early 1830s when the trapping expeditions of Jedediah Strong Smith, Ewing Young, and the Hudson Bay Company entered the Sacramento Valley. The project APE is within the 1866 Railroad Grant to the Oregon and California Railroad. Additionally, the Rancho La Barranca Colorado was located on the west side of the Sacramento River from the project APE near Red Bank Creek (Vaughan 1998). William B. Ide, known for his role in the Bear Flag Rebellion, settled in the area in 1843 (CRU 1989).

Red Bluff was established as a federal townsite under the Townsite Act of May 23, 1844 (Robinson 1948). Although no gold was found in Tehama County, the town of Red Bluffs (the “s” was later dropped) was established as the head of river navigation on the Sacramento River in 1849/1850 in response to the California Gold Rush (Vaughan 2002). Supplies for miners were shipped up the river from Sacramento and then transferred to wagons or mules in Red Bluff and carried to mining camps in Shasta and Siskiyou counties (Vaughan 1998). The population of Red Bluff was estimated to have been between 50 and 200 residents in 1853 (CRU 1989).

The earliest recorded settlements in the Red Bluff area appear to have been located around the Sacramento River and Reeds Creek. William Cooper had an adobe house just south of Reeds Creek in 1849, and by 1851, a 160-acre strip of land on the west side of the river north of Reeds Creek was settled by William Meyers, who operated the Red Bluff House, which served as a hotel/stopping place for travelers. By 1860, Meyers was in debt, and in 1864, the Red Bluff House was destroyed by a great windstorm (Kraft and Woodrum 2005).

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS

a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The following sources were consulted to obtain information concerning known archaeological sites, historic properties, and historic activities within and/or adjacent to the study area:

• Northeast Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at California State University, Chico (NE/CHRIS)

• National Register of Historic Places (1979–2002 and supplements)

• California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (2011 web list and supplemental information to date)

• California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976)

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-22 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

• California Historical Landmarks (1995 and supplemental information to date)

• California Points of Historical Interest (1992 and supplemental information to date)

• Historic maps and aerial photographs; and

• The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

ENPLAN conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the entire project APE on July 8 and August 22, 2016. No historic properties or resources were identified as a result of the ENPLAN cultural resources inventory. However, there is a possibility of unanticipated and accidental cultural resource discoveries during ground-disturbing project-related activities. Unanticipated and accidental cultural resource discoveries during project implementation have the potential to negatively affect significant cultural resources. Mitigation measure MM 4.5.1 would address these potential impacts. b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. No archaeological resources were identified as a result of the ENPLAN cultural resources inventory. However, unanticipated and accidental archaeological discoveries are possible during project implementation, especially during excavation, and have the potential to impact unique archaeological resources. Mitigation measure MM 4.5.1 would also address these potential impacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. No known paleontological resources exist within the project area. Regardless, unanticipated and accidental paleontological discoveries are possible during project implementation, especially excavation, and have the potential to impact unique paleontological resources. Mitigation measure MM 4.5.2 would address these potential impacts. d) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. There is the possibility that human remains could be encountered below the surface during construction activities. Mitigation measure MM 4.5.3 would address these potential impacts.

Mitigation Measures

MM 4.5.1 If any subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a 50-foot radius of the discovery. An on-site archaeological monitor or principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology, shall be retained by the project applicant and shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to evaluate the significance of the find. Work shall continue within a 50-foot radius of the discovery site until the archaeologist conducts sufficient research and data collection to make a determination that the resource is either (1) not cultural in origin or (2) not potentially significant or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. If a potentially eligible resource is encountered, the archaeologist, lead agency, and project applicant shall arrange for either (1) total avoidance of the resource, if possible, or (2) test excavations to evaluate eligibility and, if eligible, total data recovery as mitigation. The determination shall be formally documented in writing and submitted to the City as verification that the provisions in CEQA for managing unanticipated discoveries have been met.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-23 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Timing/Implementation: During the construction period

Monitoring/Enforcement: City of Red Bluff Planning Department and Public Works Department

MM 4.5.2 If subsurface deposits believed to be of paleontological significance are discovered during construction, all work must halt within a 50-foot radius of the discovery. An on-site paleontological monitor, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for paleontology, shall be retained by the project applicant and shall be afforded a reasonable amount of time to evaluate the significance of the find. Work cannot continue at the discovery site until the paleontologist conducts sufficient research and data collection to make a determination that the resource is either (1) not a paleontological resource or (2) not potentially significant. If a potentially eligible resource is encountered, the paleontologist, lead agency, and project applicant shall arrange for either (1) total avoidance of the resource, if possible, or (2) test excavations to evaluate eligibility and, if eligible, total data recovery as mitigation. The determination shall be formally documented in writing and submitted to the City, as verification that the provisions in CEQA for managing unanticipated discoveries have been met.

Timing/Implementation: During the construction period

Monitoring/Enforcement: City of Red Bluff Planning Department and Public Works Department

MM 4.5.3 If human remains are discovered during future development of the site, all work must stop within 50 feet of the find and the Tehama County Coroner shall be notified, per California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then determine those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American(s). Together with representatives of the people most likely descent, a qualified archaeologist shall make and assessment of the discovery and recommend/implement mitigation measures as necessary

Timing/Implementation: During the construction period

Monitoring/Enforcement: City of Red Bluff Planning Department and Public Works Department

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-24 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including

liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of

topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater

disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

OVERVIEW

The topography of the proposed project site is relatively flat, with no significant topographic features. Red Bluff is located in the Great Valley Geomorphic Province. The province is an alluvial plain about 50 miles wide and 400 miles long in the central part of California. Its northern part is the Sacramento Valley, drained by the Sacramento River, and its southern part is the San Joaquin Valley, drained by the San Joaquin River. The Great Valley is a trough in which sediments have been deposited almost continuously since the Jurassic (about 160 million years ago). Great oil fields have been found in the southernmost San Joaquin Valley and along anticlinal uplifts on its southwestern margin. In the Sacramento Valley, the Sutter Buttes, the remnants of an isolated Pliocene volcano, rise above the valley floor (CGS 2002).

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-25 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

The proposed project area, as with virtually all sites in California, is subject to minor ground shaking and potential secondary hazards (i.e., liquefaction and subsidence) as a result of earthquakes. The primary seismic hazard in Tehama County is minor ground shaking, which can result in partial collapse of buildings and extensive damage in poorly built or substandard structures.

In California, special definitions for active faults were devised to implement the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972, which regulates development and construction in order to avoid the hazard of surface fault rupture. The State Mining and Geology Board established policies and criteria in accordance with the act. The board defined an active fault as one which has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault was considered to be any fault that showed evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time (last 1.6 million years). Because of the large number of potentially active faults in California, the State Geologist adopted additional definitions and criteria in an effort to limit zoning to only those faults with a relatively high potential for surface rupture. Thus, the term sufficiently active was defined as a fault for which there was evidence of Holocene surface displacement. This term was used in conjunction with the term well-defined, which relates to the ability to locate a Holocene fault as a surface or near-surface feature (CGS 2010b, p. 4).

The nearest fault to the project site is the Corning Fault, which runs in a north–south direction from just north of Willows to the southeastern portion of Red Bluff. This fault is classified as a Quaternary time fault and is considered to be a potentially active fault by the California Geological Survey (CGS) (2010a). The Chico Monocline Fault is approximately 8 miles to the east of the project site (CGS 2010a). It is also a Quaternary time fault and is therefore potentially active. The Battle Creek Fault is approximately 15 miles north of the project site (CGS 2010a). This late Quaternary time fault is also considered potentially active. Finally, the Red Bluff Fault intersects the northwestern portion of Red Bluff. This is a pre-Quaternary time fault and is therefore by definition considered non-active (CGS 2010a).

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (1972) and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1990) direct the State Geologist to delineate regulatory Zones of Required Investigation to reduce the threat to public health and safety and to minimize the loss of life and property posed by earthquake-triggered ground failures. Cities and counties affected by the zones must regulate certain development projects within them. These acts also require sellers of real property (and their agents) within a mapped hazard zone to disclose at the time of sale that the property is in such a zone.

The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone. The nearest fault zone mapped by the California Geological Survey under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is the Old Station Fault located approximately 50 miles northeast of Red Bluff. The CGS does not identify Red Bluff as a city affected by this fault or any other Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS

a)

i) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project area, as with virtually all sites in California, is subject to minor ground shaking and potential secondary hazards (i.e., liquefaction and subsidence) as a result of earthquakes. The primary seismic hazard in Tehama County is minor ground shaking, which can result in partial collapse of buildings and extensive damage in poorly built or substandard structures. Three potentially active faults are known to occur in the vicinity of the project area: the Corning Fault, the Chico Monocline Fault, and the Battle Creek Fault.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-26 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

The nearest fault zone mapped by the California Geological Survey under the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is the Old Station Fault. The CGS does not identify Red Bluff as a city affected by this fault or any other Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. As such, future seismic events associated with this fault system are not anticipated to adversely affect the proposed project, and ground rupture due to faulting is considered to be unlikely.

Earthquakes are unavoidable hazards, although the resultant damage from ground shaking can be minimized through appropriate design and engineering. The City requires that all construction meet the latest standards of the California Building Code (CBC) for construction; these standards consider proximity to potential seismic sources. Project construction would be in accordance with applicable requirements of the most recent version of the CBC, which requires structural design that can accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. Thus, while fault rupture impacts would be potentially damaging, they would also tend to be reduced in their structural effects due to CBC criteria that recognize this potential. The CBC includes provisions for buildings to structurally survive an earthquake without collapsing and includes measures such as anchoring to the foundation and structural frame design. Compliance with these building safety design standards would reduce potential impacts associated with fault rupture and ground shaking to less than significant levels.

ii) Less Than Significant Impact. Although it is impossible to predict the intensity of future seismic activity, the proposed project site is located in one of the least active seismic regions in California. The CGS predicts expected relative intensity of ground shaking and damage in California from anticipated future earthquakes. The Earthquake Shaking Potential for California map indicates that Red Bluff area is located in an area that is distant from known, active faults and will experience lower levels of shaking less frequently (CGS 2008). Further, all project-related development would be required to comply with requirements of the California Building Code, which includes seismic safety standards for proposed development in seismically active areas. This impact is less than significant.

iii) Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose sand and silt that is saturated with water behaves like a liquid when shaken by an earthquake. Liquefaction can result in the following types of seismic-related ground failure:

• Loss of bearing strength – soils liquefy and lose the ability to support structures • Lateral spreading – soils slide down gentle slopes or toward stream banks • Flow failures – soils move down steep slopes with large displacement • Ground oscillation – surface soils, riding on a buried liquefied layer, are thrown back and forth by shaking • Flotation – floating of light buried structures to the surface • Settlement – settling of ground surface as soils reconsolidate • Subsidence – compaction of soil and sediment

Three factors are required for liquefaction to occur: (1) loose, granular sediment; (2) saturation of the sediment by groundwater; and (3) strong shaking. Impacts associated with liquefaction are unlikely given the low incidence of strong earthquakes in the region and the fact that the site is vacant and liquefaction has not occurred on-site. The region is not in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone, and the closest active fault system is 50 miles

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-27 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

northeast of the city. These characteristics indicate a less than significant risk of liquefaction on the project site.

iv) No Impact. The project site has flat topography, indicating no potential for landslides.

b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities during project site development, such as grading, excavation, and soil hauling, would disturb soils and potentially expose them to wind and water erosion. However, mitigation measure MM 4.4.2 (see subsection 4.4, Biological Resources) requires the preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) in order to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB’s) General Construction Storm Water Permit. The SWPPP will identify best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented on the project site to minimize soil erosion and protect local waterways and existing drainage systems. Compliance with the State’s General Construction Storm Water Permit would minimize soil erosion and loss of topsoil from project implementation and would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The potential for landslides on the project site was addressed under Issue a)iv), with a determination of no impact. The potential for lateral spreading, liquefaction, subsidence, and other types of ground failure or collapse was addressed under Issue a)iii) and was determined to have a less than significant impact. d) Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive or shrink-swell soils are soils that swell when subjected to moisture and shrink when dry. Expansive soils typically contain clay minerals that attract and absorb water, greatly increasing the volume of the soil. This increase in volume can cause damage to foundations, structures, and roadways. According to the USGS (1989), Red Bluff is located in an area with soils containing abundant clay having slight to moderate swelling potential. The City of Red Bluff requires a soils report if it has been determined by the City Building Department that a significant expansion potential exists at the site. If a soils report is required and expansive soils are found on the project site, the City requires proper remediation to rectify the situation. As such, the potential for the proposed project to be affected by expansive soils is less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project applicant has proposed a septic system for the treatment of wastewater. The existing PJ Helicopters facilities have an approved septic system, which currently adequately handles wastewater from the existing facilities. The existing and proposed systems would be placed within the same soils. As such, it is assumed that the site soils can are capable of supporting this type of wastewater disposal system. Furthermore, the proposed septic system requires the approval of the Tehama County Environmental Health Department, which requires verification that the proposed septic system is adequate to serve the project.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4.2.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-28 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.7 GREENHOUSE GASES. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either

directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

OVERVIEW

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are released as byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, waste disposal, energy use, land use changes, and other human activities. This release of gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), creates a blanket around the earth that allows light to pass through but traps heat at the surface, preventing its escape into space.

Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. CH4 traps over 25 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs 298 times more heat per molecule than CO2. Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS

a) Less Than Significant Impact. GHG emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change. No single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature. The combination of GHG emissions from past, present, and future projects contributes substantially to the phenomenon of global climate change and its associated environmental impacts and as such is addressed only as a cumulative impact.

GHG emissions associated with the project would occur over the short term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. There would also be long- term regional emissions associated with project-related new indirect source emissions, such as electricity usage for lighting associated with the proposed ±31,905-square-foot building. As previously described, the project would not result in an increase in employees or aircraft operations. Therefore, there would not be an increase in traffic-generated GHG emissions.

The proposed project is to be compared to the TCAPCD threshold of 900 metric tons of CO2e annually. The project would be considered to have a significant impact if the projected emissions would surpass 900 metric tons of CO2e annually.

Project-related GHG emissions were quantified with CalEEMod. Table 4.7-1 shows the estimated GHG emissions that would result annually with project implementation. Total

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-29 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

construction-generated GHG emissions were amortized over the estimated life of the project. A project life of 30 years is assumed for the proposed project.

TABLE 4.7-1 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS (METRIC TONS PER YEAR)

Source CO2e Construction (amortized over 30 years) 11 Area Source 0 Energy Consumption 114 Mobile Source 0 Waste Generation 15 Water Demand 42 Total 182 TCAPCD Threshold 900 Exceed Threshold? No Source: CalEEMod, version 2016.3.1. See Appendix 4.7 for annual emission model outputs.

As shown in Table 4.7-1, estimated GHG emissions resulting from both construction and operations of the proposed project would equal 182 metric tons of CO2e per year, which is below the GHG annual threshold of 900 metric tons. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As identified under Issue a), proposed project-generated GHG emissions would not surpass TCAPCD greenhouse gas significance thresholds, which were prepared with the purpose of complying with state reduction goals. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The impact is less than significant.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-30 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset

and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste

within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a

public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

OVERVIEW

A material is considered hazardous if it appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, state, or local agency or if it has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. A hazardous material is defined by the California Health and Safety Code Section 25501 as follows:

“Hazardous material” means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. “Hazardous

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-31 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

materials” include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.

A hazardous material is defined in Title 22, Section 662601.10, of the California Code of Regulations as follows:

A substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed.

The release of hazardous materials into the environment could potentially contaminate soils, surface water, and groundwater supplies.

Most hazardous materials regulation and enforcement in Tehama County is managed by the Tehama County Environmental Health Department, which refers large cases of hazardous materials contamination or violations to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). It is not at all uncommon for other agencies to become involved when issues of hazardous materials arise, such as the TCAPCD and both the federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Administrations.

Under Government Code Section 65962.5, both the DTSC and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) are required to maintain lists of sites known to have hazardous substances present in the environment. Both agencies maintain up-to-date lists on their websites. A search of the DTSC (2016) and SWRCB (2016) lists identified no hazardous waste violations in the project area.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS

a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project does not include the installation of new fuel tanks or other hazardous materials storage. While existing aircraft fuel storage tanks and other hazardous materials exist adjacent to the project site, the project would not increase the use, transport, or disposal of these existing materials. All existing materials are used, stored, and disposed in accordance with existing regulations and product labeling and would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. The existing PJ Helicopters facilities have already been in operation as a helicopter operation and maintenance facility. Continued operation, with the proposed expanded facilities, would not introduce any hazardous materials–related hazards to the public or to the environment that have not already been considered. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Issue a) above, the proposed project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. Potential construction-related hazards could be created during the course of project construction at the project site, given that construction activities involve the use of heavy equipment, which uses small and incidental amounts of oils and fuels and other potentially flammable substances. However, the level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials used during construction. The construction contractor would be required

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-32 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, state, and federal laws.

c) No Impact. The nearest public education facility is Vista Middle School, located at 1770 S. Jackson Street, approximately 0.75 mile to the north. Therefore, there is no school site within one-quarter mile of the project.

d) No Impact. Under Government Code Section 65962.5, both the DTSC and the SWRCB are required to maintain lists of sites known to have hazardous substances present in the environment. Both agencies maintain up-to-date lists on their websites. A search of the DTSC and SWRCB lists identified no hazardous waste violations within 1 mile of the project site. The project site is not on a parcel included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2016; SWRCB 2016). The proposed project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. It would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located adjacent to Red Bluff Municipal Airport (a public airport) and is located in the City of Red Bluff Airport (AV) zoning district. The proposed project is an addition to the existing PJ Helicopters facilities and is an allowed use in the AV zoning district. The proposed project would not increase the number of project-related aircraft flights or the number of employees. The new facility is to be used for storage, offices, and other operational functions to mitigate existing inadequate storage and operations space. The proposed project would not result in an increase of safety hazards for persons working or living in the area.

f) No Impact. The project site is located approximately 3.25 miles southeast of the private Meadow Airstrip and is not located in vicinity of any private airport. The project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. g) No Impact. The project site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac serving only PJ Helicopters. Construction of the proposed project may result in short-term traffic impediments on S. Jackson Street during water line installation. However, the City of Red Bluff would require notification of roadway encroachments; therefore, any emergency operations would be revised by the City as needed. The proposed project would not result in an increase in employees or aircraft operations, nor would the project result in a change to the existing roadway system. As such, the proposed project would not result in interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not in an area designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) (2008) as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Furthermore, no Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones are located nearby. The location of the project makes it readily accessible by emergency personnel and vehicles in the event of a wildland fire. For these reasons, this impact would be less than significant.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-33 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste

discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater

table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned

stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or

Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

OVERVIEW

The project site is located in the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region, which covers approximately 17.4 million acres (27,200 square miles) (DWR 2004a). The region includes all or large portions of

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-34 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Modoc, Siskiyou, Lassen, Shasta, Tehama, Glenn, Plumas, Butte, Colusa, Sutter, Yuba, Sierra, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, El Dorado, Yolo, Solano, Lake, and Napa counties.

The project area is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), one of nine regional boards in the state. The Central Valley RWQCB, with an office in Redding, develops and enforces water quality objectives and implementation plans that safeguard the quality of water resources in its region. Specifically, the RWQCB identifies potential water quality problems, confirms and characterizes water quality problems through assessments, remedies problems by imposing or enforcing appropriate measures, and monitors problem areas to assess the effectiveness of remedial measures. Remedies for problems include prevention and cleanup. Common means of prevention are the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, waste discharge requirements, and discharge prohibitions and restrictions. Cleanup is implemented through enforcement measures such as Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders.

One of the duties of the RWQCB is the development of “basin plans” for the hydrologic area over which it has jurisdiction. In 1998, the Central Valley RWQCB issued the fourth edition of its Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region, also known as the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan covers both the Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin. The plan sets forth water quality objectives for both surface water and groundwater for the region, and it describes implementation programs to achieve these objectives. The Basin Plan is the foundation for the regulations and enforcement actions of the Central Valley RWQCB.

Groundwater is the source of the City’s water supply. The City has 14 wells; however, one well is currently not in use as a result of poor water quality from that well. The currently operating 13 wells varying in depth from 250 feet to 625 feet below the ground surface. Pumping capacity also varies from 480 to 2,400 gallons per minute. In addition, the City has two 3-million-gallon water storage tanks (Red Bluff 2016b).

The City obtains groundwater from the Sacramento Valley Basin, specifically from the Red Bluff and Antelope subbasins. The Red Bluff subbasin is located in western Tehama County and underlies the western two-thirds of Red Bluff. The subbasin has a surface area of 416 square miles (DWR 2004a). The total storage capacity of the basin is estimated to be approximately 4,208,851 acre-feet (AF). Estimates of groundwater extraction for the Red Bluff subbasin are based on a survey conducted by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 1994. The survey included land use and sources of water. The estimate of groundwater extraction for agricultural use is estimated to be 81,000 AF. Groundwater extraction for municipal and industrial uses is 8,900 AF. Deep percolation from applied water is estimated to be 20,000 AF (DWR 2004a). Review of hydrographs for long-term comparison of spring-to-spring groundwater levels indicates a decline of 3 to 7 feet associated with the 1976–77 and 1987–94 droughts, followed by a recovery to pre-drought conditions of the early 1970s and 1980s. Generally, groundwater level data show a seasonal fluctuation ranging from 5 to 10 feet for unconfined, semiconfined, and composite wells. Wells constructed in confined aquifers can fluctuate up to 50 feet. Overall, there do not appear to be any increasing or decreasing trends in the groundwater levels (DWR 2004a). While this information is somewhat dated as of this writing in 2017, it provides an overall picture of groundwater depth over a long time period and through conditions of water abundance and drought.

The Antelope subbasin is located in northeastern Tehama County and underlies the eastern one- third of Red Bluff. The subbasin has a surface area of 29 square miles (DWR 2004a). The total storage capacity of the basin is estimated to be approximately 269,179 acre-feet. Estimates of groundwater extraction for the Antelope subbasin are based on a survey conducted by the DWR in 1994. The survey included land use and sources of water. Estimates of groundwater extraction

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-35 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

for agricultural and municipal/industrial uses are 17,000 and 2,100 acre-feet respectively. Deep percolation of applied water is estimated to be 3,800 AF. Review of hydrographs for long-term comparison of spring-to-spring groundwater levels indicates a decline of 5 to 10 feet associated with the 1976–77 and 1987–94 droughts, followed by a recovery to pre-drought conditions of the early 1970s and 1980s. Generally, groundwater level data show a seasonal fluctuation of approximate 2 to 15 feet for normal and dry years. Overall, there do not appear to be any increasing or decreasing trends in groundwater levels (DWR 2004b). While this information is somewhat dated as of this writing in 2017, it provides an overall picture of groundwater depth over a long time period and through conditions of water abundance and drought.

The DWR also provides information on groundwater level changes through groundwater well depth monitoring under yearly, 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year scenarios. According to this information, under the 10-year scenario from spring 2006 to spring 2016, the groundwater level decreased from 2.5 to 10 feet in the Red Bluff area (DWR 2016a). However, the yearly scenario, from spring 2015 to spring 2016, indicates a decrease of 2.5 feet to an increase of 2.5 feet, depending on well location (DWR 2016b).

Currently, the DWR is in the process of updating the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Bulletin 118 report. However, this report is not yet available to the public, and an anticipated production date has not been established.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has prepared a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) depicting flood hazard areas in Tehama County. According to FEMA (2011), no portion of the project area is located within the 100-year floodplain, per FIRM 06103C0788H.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS

a) Less Than Significant Impact. There is potential for the proposed project to result in degradation of water quality during both the construction and operational phases. Polluted runoff from the project site during construction and operation could include sediment from soil disturbances, oil and grease from construction equipment, and pesticides and fertilizers from landscaped areas. This degradation could result in a violation of water quality standards. However, the project would be required to prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) pursuant to Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and subject to RWQCB review for each phase of the project. The SWPPP would include measures designed to reduce or eliminate erosion and runoff into waterways. Best management practices include wattles, covering of stockpiles, silt fences, and other physical means of slowing stormwater flow from the graded areas to allow sediment to settle before entering stormwater channels. The method used would be described in the SWPPP and may vary depending on the circumstances of construction.

The proposed project includes a 75,000-cubic-foot stormwater retention basin. All stormwater flowing from the project’s parking lot and new building would flow into this basin. In addition, stormwater flow from the existing landing pad would be redirected to flow into the basin. The basin is designed to retain all stormwater from the project and therefore prevent the possibility of project stormwater flows into any waterways.

Additionally, the project would not violate any waste discharge requirements as the project would include an on-site septic system, which would require approval from the Tehama County Environmental Health Department.

Because of these standard procedures and the requirement to prepare a SWPPP, project impacts to water quality are considered to be less than significant.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-36 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

b) Less Than Significant Impact. Currently, PJ Helicopters obtains potable water through an on- site groundwater well. This well would remain in operation to supply water to the existing facilities. The proposed project would connect to the City’s water system to serve the new facilities and landscaping. The project’s water demand is anticipated to be approximately 16,800 gallons per month or 0.62 acre-feet per year. This increase represents 1.4 x 10-7 percent of the estimated 4,208,851 acre-feet of storage capacity in the Red Bluff subbasin.1 As discussed previously, the City’s only source of water is 13 operational wells. While the City relies on groundwater for its water supply, operation of the proposed project would not significantly increase demand for or otherwise deplete groundwater supplies, and this impact would be less than significant.

Construction of the proposed project would result in the development of 2.66 acres, which are currently vacant. Currently, this area would allow water to percolate into the groundwater basin. The actual absorption rate on the proposed site is unknown and whether or not this water actually penetrates the groundwater basin or flows off-site is also unknown. The actual impervious surfaces (building and parking lot) amount to less than an acre. All stormwater flow from these areas would flow into the stormwater retention basin. This basin would allow water to percolate into the groundwater basin and not flow off-site. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site does not contain any natural surface water features. Implementation of the proposed project may alter the existing drainage patterns on the site by adding hardscapes that currently do not exist. However, for construction-related drainage, the project applicant would be required to prepare a SWPPP in order to comply with the RWQCB’s General Construction Storm Water Permit. The SWPPP would identify best management practices to be implemented on the project site to minimize soil erosion and protect existing drainage systems. Compliance with existing regulations developed to minimize erosion and siltation would reduce this impact during construction to a less than significant level. After the completion of construction, all on-site storm drainage would flow into the stormwater retention basin. The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is primarily undeveloped, has flat topography, and does not contain any surface water features. The project would involve some minor changes to drainage patterns and changes to the amount of impervious surfaces. The drainage pattern at the project site and in the surrounding areas, as well as surface runoff conditions after implementation of the proposed project, would be the same as existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on causing flooding on- or off-site. e) Less Than Significant Impact. See the discussions of Issues a) and c) in this subsection. Implementation of the proposed project would alter the existing drainage patterns on the site through changes to the amount of impervious surfaces. Polluted runoff from the project site during construction and operation could include sediment from soil disturbances; oil and grease from construction equipment, roadways, and parking lots; pesticides and fertilizers from landscaped areas; metals from paints; and gross pollutants such as trash and debris. Compliance with existing regulations developed to minimize the release of polluted runoff from construction sites would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

1 1.4 x 10-7% equals 0.00000014% City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-37 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

f) Less Than Significant Impact. See the discussions of Issues a), c), and e) in this subsection. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on substantial degradation of water quality.

g) No Impact. According to FEMA (2011) flood hazard maps, the project site is not located in a flood zone. Further, the project does not propose the development of housing. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not have an impact related to flooding.

h) No Impact. Please refer to Issue g) above. i) No Impact. According to the Tehama County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2012), portions of Red Bluff are subject to potential flooding due to dam failure from Lake Shasta and Whiskeytown Reservoir. However, the project site is not located in any dam inundation areas and is not subject to flooding as a result of levee or dam failure. j) No Impact. The project site is located more than 100 miles from the Pacific Ocean, with no large lakes in the vicinity. Additionally, the topography of the project site is essentially flat and not at risk of mudflows. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any impacts related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-38 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the

general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation

plan or natural community conservation plan?

OVERVIEW

The proposed project would further develop and expand an existing use. All improvements would be in the Red Bluff city limits. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Public Services, and the site is zoned Airport. No changes are proposed in the current land use designation or zoning.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS

a) No Impact. The project would not divide an established residential community, as no residential communities exist adjacent to the site. b) No Impact. All activities associated with the project would occur In the City’s Airport zoning district and the General Plan Public Service land use designation. The project’s land use type is an allowed use in this zoning district and land use designation. Additionally, the project is located in the Red Bluff Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Zone 6, which covers most of western half of the city. The proposed project’s use (aircraft storage, parking area) is considered a compatible use in Zone 6 (TCALUC 2015, p. 44). c) No Impact. Currently, there is not an approved habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan that applies in Red Bluff. The project would have no impact.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-39 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral

resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

OVERVIEW

There are no active mines within or near the project site and no known areas with mineral resources on the project site.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) No Impact. No mineral resource recovery sites are located on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or resource recovery site. b) No Impact. Please refer to Issue a).

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-40 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.12 NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the

local general plan or noise ordinance or of applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a

public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing

or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

OVERVIEW

Noise is generally defined as sound that is loud, disagreeable, or unexpected. The selection of a proper noise descriptor for a specific source is dependent on the spatial and temporal distribution, duration, and fluctuation of the noise. The noise descriptors most often encountered when dealing with traffic, community, and environmental noise include the average-hourly noise level (in Leq) and the average-daily noise levels (in Ldn/CNEL).

Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources, such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver. Mobile transportation sources, such as highways, and hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3.0 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source. Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate of approximately 6.0 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source (EPA 1971).

Sound levels can be reduced by placing barriers between the noise source and the receiver. In general, barriers contribute to decreasing noise levels only when the structure breaks the “line of

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-41 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

sight” between the source and the receiver. Buildings, concrete walls, and berms can all act as effective noise barriers. Wooden fences or broad areas of dense foliage can also reduce noise, but they are less effective than solid barriers.

In order to quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, Michael Baker International conducted three short-term noise measurements on January 12, 2017. The noise measurement sites were representative of typical existing noise exposure within and immediately adjacent to the project site. The 10-minute measurements were taken between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. Short-term (Leq) measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The average noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are listed in Table 4.12-1.

TABLE 4.12-1 NOISE MEASUREMENTS

Site No. Location Leq (dBA) Lmin (dBA) Lmax (dBA) Time Eastern boundary of existing PJ Helicopters 1 48.5 42.5 58.9 1:05–1:15 p.m. property (just outside the fence) Northeastern boundary of existing 2 43.5 40.2 55.2 1:17–1:27 p.m. PJ Helicopters property (just outside the fence) S. Jackson Street and Spyglass Drive 3 67.0 40.8 79.5 1:33–1:43 p.m. intersection (northeast corner)

Source: Michael Baker International. See Appendix 4.12 for noise measurement outputs.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS

a) Less Than Significant Impact.

Construction Noise

The City of Red Bluff does not establish quantitative noise limits for construction activities occurring in the city. To evaluate whether the project will generate a substantial periodic increase in short‐term noise levels at sensitive receptors, a construction‐related noise level threshold is adopted from the Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (1998). A division of the US Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The construction-related noise level threshold starts at 85 dBA for more than 8 hours per day; for every 3 dBA increase, the exposure time is cut in half. This results in noise level thresholds of 88 dBA for more than 4 hours per day, 92 dBA for more than 1 hour per day, 96 dBA for more than 30 minutes per day, and up to 100 dBA for more than 15 minutes per day. For the purposes of this analysis, the lowest, more conservative construction noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq was used as an acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. Since this construction‐related noise level threshold represents the energy average of the noise source over a given time period, noise levels are expressed as Leq. The noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq over a period of 8 hours or more was used to evaluate the potential project‐related construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations.

Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators,

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-42 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

can reach high levels. Although noise ranges are generally similar for all construction phases, the initial site preparation phase tends to involve the most heavy-duty equipment having a higher noise-generation potential. Noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are summarized in Table 4.12-2.

TABLE 4.12-2 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS

Acoustical Use Maximum Noise Maximum 8-Hour 1 Type of Equipment Factor (Lmax) at Noise (Leq) at (percent) 50 Feet (dBA) 50 Feet (dBA) Blasting 1 94 74.0 Crane 16 81 72.6 Dozer 40 82 77.7 Excavator 40 81 76.7 Generator 50 81 77.6 Grader 40 85 81.0 Other Equipment (greater than 5 horsepower) 50 85 82.0 Paver 50 77 74.2 Roller 20 80 73.0 Tractor 40 84 80.0 Truck 40 75 71.0 Concrete Pump Truck 40 81 74.4 Welder 40 74 70.0

Source: FHWA 2006 Note: 1. Acoustical use factor (percent): Estimates the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation.

As depicted in Table 4.12-2, noise levels generated by individual pieces of construction equipment typically range from approximately 70 to 82 dBA Leq at 50 feet. Noise levels associated with construction projects can vary, depending on the activities performed. Short- term increases in vehicle traffic, including worker commute trips and haul truck trips, may also result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels.

During project construction, exterior noise levels could affect the nearest existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity, located 0.3 miles from the project site. Based on the construction equipment noise levels depicted in Table 4.12-2 and assuming an average noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source center, predicted maximum 8-hour noise levels would range from approximately 40.7 to 52.7 dBA Leq. Because the maximum predicted 8-hour noise levels would are below NIOSH’s 85 dBA Leq threshold, and because construction noise would be temporary, intermittent, and short in duration, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to construction noise.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-43 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Operational Noise

Helicopters taking off and landing are the main source of operational noise at the existing PJ Helicopters facilities. At 330 feet away, a typical helicopter has an Lmax of 87.0 dBA during take- off and an Lmax of 87.9 dBA while landing. The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences located 0.3 miles from the helicopter pad. Based on an attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, the nearest sensitive receptors would experience Lmax noise levels of 74.1 dBA during take-off and 75.0 dBA during landing.

As previously stated, the proposed project would not result in an increase in noise levels since there would not be an increase in employees, vehicle trips, or aircraft operations beyond existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase operational noise beyond what is currently experienced without the project. This impact is less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved. Vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. Since there are no established vibration standards in Red Bluff, this evaluation uses Caltrans’s (2002) recommended standard of 0.2 inches per second peak particle velocity with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings. This is also the level at which vibrations may begin to annoy people in buildings. Table 4.12-3 displays vibration levels for typical construction equipment.

TABLE 4.12-3 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS

Equipment Type Peak Particle Velocity at 25 Feet (inches per second) Large Bulldozer 0.089 Caisson Drilling 0.089 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Rock Breaker 0.059 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer/Tractor 0.003 Source: FTA 2006; Caltrans 2004

The nearest structure to any of the construction areas is the existing PJ Helicopters facilities building 275 feet to the west. Based on the vibration levels listed in Table 4.12-3, groundborne vibration generated by heavy-duty equipment would not be anticipated to exceed approximately 0.089 inches per second peak particle velocity at 25 feet. Therefore, predicted vibration levels at the nearest buildings would not exceed recommended criteria for structural damage or human annoyance. Once operational, the project would not be a source of groundborne vibration. Impacts would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The proposed project would not result in an increase in employees, vehicle trips, or aircraft operations. Therefore, there will not be a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. There will be no impact. d) Less Than Significant Impact. See discussion under Issue a). PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-44 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

e) No Impact. The project site is 0.5 mile east of the Red Bluff Municipal Airport runway. However, the Tehama County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan indicates that the project site is well outside of the airport noise contours (TCALUC 2015). Therefore, there is no impact. f) No Impact. The project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. There is no impact.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-45 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and

businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

OVERVIEW

The project site is located in Red Bluff adjacent to the existing PJ Helicopters facilities. No increases in the number of employees are proposed as part of the project, nor are residences a project component.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) No Impact. The project site is located on vacant land, and no new roads or extensions of existing roads are proposed. The project does not include the construction of any new homes or businesses. The objective of the proposed project is to provide additional storage and aircraft hangar facilities adjacent to an existing use of this type. Because no increase in employment is anticipated with the proposed project, there would be no increase in population. Therefore, direct or indirect increases in population growth would not occur as a result of the proposed project. b) No Impact. No residences would be displaced or removed as a result of the proposed project, and the project would have no impact on existing housing. c) No Impact. As discussed under Issue b), the project would not involve the removal or relocation of any housing and would therefore not displace any people or necessitate the construction of any replacement housing.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-46 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools?

d) Parks?

e) Other public facilities?

OVERVIEW

FIRE PROTECTION

The City of Red Bluff Fire Department (RBFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the project site. The RBFD operates one fire station in the city and has 14 full-time firefighting staff members and 18 reserve firefighters (RBFD 2016a). Services include fire suppression, emergency medical service, rescue service, hazardous material emergency service, public safety communication, fire prevention and urban search and rescue. The department has three fire trucks, one ladder truck, two rescue/squad vehicles, and one OES engine (RBFD 2016b). The fire station is located at 555 Washington Street, approximately 2 miles from the project site.

POLICE PROTECTION

The Red Bluff Police Department (RBPD) provides law enforcement services to the project site. The department is located at 555 Washington Street, approximately 2 miles from the project site. The RBPD had 22 sworn police officers, 6 community service officers, and 9 civilian employees (RBPD 2016). RBPD personnel are organized into three divisions: Administration, Operations, and Support/Special Services.

SCHOOLS

The Red Bluff Union Elementary School District has three elementary schools serving students in kindergarten through grade 6 and one middle school serving grades 7 and 8. The district serves approximately 2,100 students. Red Bluff is also served by the Red Bluff Joint Union High School District, which has two high schools, grades 9 through 12, serving approximately 1,600 students.

PARKS

Park, recreation, and open space resources, facilities, and services in the city are managed by the City of Red Bluff Parks and Recreation Department. The city has approximately 90 acres of parks, facilities, and open space, including River Park, Forward Park, Diamond Park, Dog Island

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-47 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Park, Trainor Park, Lots for Tots, the Campfire Recreation Area, the Lincoln Street and Carl Coleman tennis courts, and the Community Center.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes four new fire hydrants and fire water line extensions to serve the project. The RBFD currently serves the adjacent PJ Helicopters facilities and would not require any additional department facilities, equipment, and/or staff. The project is not anticipated to create an additional burden on the RBFD. The proposed project does not introduce buildings or equipment that could not be served by existing fire department equipment.

The RBFD requires emergency vehicle access to all portions of the proposed site buildings. In addition, water for fire suppression must be available. The project’s impact is less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The RBPD currently serves the adjacent PJ Helicopters facilities. The proposed project would not result in a significant increase in demand for police service, as proposed uses are similar to the existing uses at the adjacent PJ Helicopters facilities. c) No Impact. The proposed project does not result in an increase in housing or population in the city that would require additional educational facilities. No increase in employment is proposed as part of this project. d) No Impact. The proposed project does not result in an increase in housing or population in the city that would require additional recreational facilities. No increase in employment is proposed as part of this project. e) No Impact. Because the proposed project does not result in an increase in housing or population in the city, the project will have no impacts on other public facilities.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-48 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 4.15 RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of

recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

OVERVIEW

Red Bluff has approximately 90 acres of parks, facilities, and open space, including River Park, Forward Park, Diamond Park, Dog Island Park, Trainor Park, Lots for Tots, the Campfire Recreation Area, the Lincoln Street and Carl Coleman tennis courts, and the Community Center.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS

a) No Impact. The proposed project does not result in an increase in housing or population in the city that would require additional recreational facilities. No increase in employment is proposed as part of the project.

b) No Impact. No public recreation facilities are proposed. The proposed project does not result in an increase in housing or population in the city that would require additional recreational facilities. No increase in employment is proposed as part of the project.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-49 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand

measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location which results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian

facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

OVERVIEW

The project site is located on Langley Way, a 1,000-foot cul-de-sac that only serves PJ Helicopters. Regional access to the site is provided by S. Jackson Road. As stated previously, the proposed project would not result in an increase in employees or flight operations. As such, no increase in traffic or existing conditions is expected with development of the proposed project.

The project site is located adjacent to Red Bluff Municipal Airport (a public airport) and is located in the City of Red Bluff Airport (AV) zoning district. The proposed facility is an addition to the existing PJ Helicopters facilities and is an allowed use in the AV zoning district.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS

a) No Impact. The proposed project is an addition to an existing use. However, no increase in employees or flight operations would occur with development of the project. The proposed

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-50 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

project would not result in increased traffic and would not conflict with the adopted level of service (LOS) standards or worsen an existing nonconforming LOS situation. Because it is an existing use and no change in employment and resultant traffic would occur, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.

b) No Impact. The proposed project is an addition to an existing use. However, no increase in employees or flight operations would occur with development of the project. The proposed project would not result in increased traffic and would not conflict with the adopted LOS standards or worsen an existing nonconforming LOS situation. Because it is an existing use and no change in employment and resultant traffic would occur, the project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program. c) No Impact. The project site is located adjacent to Red Bluff Municipal Airport (a public airport) and is located in the City of Red Bluff Airport (AV) zoning district. However, the proposed project would not increase the number of project-related aircraft flights or change the existing takeoff and approach areas. The new facility is to be used for storage, offices, and other operational functions to mitigate existing inadequate storage and operations facility space. The proposed project would not result in a change to existing air traffic patterns. d) No Impact. No change to the surrounding roadway system is proposed with development of the project. No new on-site roadways are proposed. The proposed project would not create hazards due to roadway design features or incompatible uses. e) No Impact. The proposed project site will have multiple access points for emergency vehicles. Additionally, the Red Bluff Fire Department and Police Department have reviewed the proposed site plan and approved the site access configuration. f) No Impact. No change to the surrounding roadway system is proposed with development of the project. No new on-site roadways are proposed. Because the number of employees would not increase with implementation of the project, no substantial increase in public transit ridership or use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities is expected.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-51 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the

applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and

resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and

regulations related to solid waste?

OVERVIEW

The City of Red Bluff Public Works Department is responsible for wastewater, water, and storm drainage services in the city. Solid waste collection/disposal and curbside recycling collection in the city is provided by Green Waste of Tehama.

WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT

Wastewater infrastructure in the city, including the project site, is maintained by the Red Bluff Public Works Department Wastewater Division. The City’s Wastewater Reclamation Plant has a design capacity of 2,500,000 gallons per day (gpd) and currently treats about 1,400,000 gpd in dry weather. Wet weather can cause flows to increase to over 3,000,000 gpd. The City’s wastewater collection system includes over 60 miles of sewer and 14 sewage lift stations. It is anticipated that an expansion of the treatment plan will probably be needed within the next 10 years to handle projected growth in the city and adjacent county areas (Red Bluff 2016a).

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-52 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

WATER SERVICES

Water infrastructure in the city, including the project site, is maintained by the Red Bluff Public Works Department Water Department. Groundwater is the source of the City’s water supply. The groundwater is of excellent quality and does not require alteration or treatment. The City currently operates 14 groundwater wells varying in depth from 250 to 625 feet below the ground surface. Pumping capacity also varies from 480 to 2,400 gallons per minute (gpm). In addition, the City has two 3-million-gallon water storage tanks (Red Bluff 2016b). The current City policy is to accommodate new potable water demands through additional groundwater pumping. This pumping capacity is to be provided via new wells. Existing Wells No. 1, 2, and 3 are proposed for replacement with a single well with a flow of 2,400 gpm.

The City’s recently adopted 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) provides water supply and demand information through 2040. Table 4.17-1 shows the projected water demand through 2040 as illustrated in the 2015 UWMP. In 2015, the City supplied 3,166 acre-feet (AF) of water to its customers (Red Bluff 2016). Because the City obtains its water from groundwater, allocated supply is not a factor in the 2015 UWMP. The City would pump sufficient amounts of groundwater to supply the needs of its water customers.

The water supply available to the City is identified in the UWMP and is based on three water supply condition scenarios: average/normal water year, single dry water year, and multiple dry water years. As shown in Table 4.17-1, the City has an adequate water supply to meet projected demand through 2040 for all scenarios.

TABLE 4.17-1 WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Water Supply by Year (acre-feet) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Normal Year Scenario Supply 4,601 4,691 4,785 4,880 4,977 Demand 4,601 4,691 4,785 4,880 4,977 Supply/Demand Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Single Dry Year Scenario Supply 4,601 4,691 4,785 4,880 4,977 Demand 4,601 4,691 4,785 4,880 4,977 Supply/Demand Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple Dry Years Scenario Supply 4,601 4,691 4,785 4,880 4,977 Demand 4,601 4,691 4,785 4,880 4,977 Supply/Demand Difference 0 0 0 0 0 Source: Red Bluff 2016

STORM DRAINAGE

The City’s storm drainage system consists of drains, laterals, pumps, and catch basins. These facilities are maintained by the Red Bluff Public Works Department. Storm drains are intended to take rainwater straight to existing waterways to avoid area flooding. The proposed project

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-53 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST includes the installation of a stormwater retention basin, which is designed to handle all of the stormwater from the project site.

SOLID WASTE

The City of Red Bluff, along with the Cities of Corning and Tehama, and Tehama County, is a member of the Tehama County Solid Waste Management Agency (TCSWMA). Effective July 1, 2015, the Tehama County Sanitary Landfill Agency was consolidated into the Tehama County/Red Bluff Landfill Management Agency and renamed the Tehama County Solid Waste Management Agency. Green Waste of Tehama provides solid waste and recycling collection in the city. As shown in Table 4.17-2, the majority of the solid waste in the county is disposed of at the Tehama County/Red Bluff Landfill. According to the figures published by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) (2016a), in 2015, the Tehama County/Red Bluff Landfill received approximately 94.7 percent of the TCSWMA’s solid waste, or 47,564 tons. The landfill has a cease operations date of January 1, 2040.

TABLE 4.17-2 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES USED BY THE TCSWMA

Solid Waste Disposal Landfill Information (tons per year) Destination Facility Remaining Remaining Cease 2013 2014 2015 Capacity Capacity Operation (cubic yards) Date Date Altamont Landfill & Resource 86 7 89 65,400,000 12/31/14 1/1/2025 Recovery Anderson Landfill, Inc. 256 2,949 2,313 11,914,025 3/16/08 1/1/2093 Azusa Land Reclamation Co. 1 0 1 51,512,201 9/30/12 1/1/2045 Landfill Forward Landfill, Inc. 12 21 3 22,100,000 12/31/12 1/1/2020 Highway 59 Disposal Site 0 24 0 28,025,334 9/1/05 1/1/2030 L and D Landfill 13 0 0 4,100,000 5/31/05 1/1/2023 Neal Road Recycling and Waste 101 219 187 20,847,970 7/1/09 1/1/2033 Facility Potrero Hills Landfill 22 6 13,872,000 1/1/06 2/14/2048 Recology Hay Road 18 12 81 30,433,000 7/28/10 1/1/2077 Recology Ostrom Road LF Inc. 0 0 2 39,223,000 6/1/07 12/31/2066 Sacramento County Landfill 9 0 0 112,900,000 9/12/05 1/1/2064 Tehama County/Red Bluff 44,689 44,386 47,564 2,148,557 12/31/08 1/1/2040 Landfill Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill 0 8 0 7,959,076 7/13/14 12/31/2022 West Central Landfill 117 65 8 6,589,044 12/1/13 3/1/2032 Yolo County Central Landfill 1 0 0 N/A N/A 1/1/2081 Yearly Totals 45,325 47,691 50,254 Source: CalRecycle 2016a, 2016b

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-54 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS

a) No Impact. The project would not connect to the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system. All wastewater for the proposed project would be processed using the proposed septic system, which includes a septic tank and a leach field. The Tehama County Public Health Department would be required to approve this septic system prior to installation. The system would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, the project would have no impact. b) No Impact. As stated above, the project proposes to construct an on-site septic system. Therefore, construction of new or expansion of existing City wastewater facilities is not required.

The project would not result in the construction of new water facilities that would result in a physical impact to the environment. As discussed previously, the City has adequate facilities to provide water through 2040 and anticipates the construction of one new well to replace three existing wells. However, this replacement would occur regardless of the proposed project. As such, the project would have no impact on water and wastewater facilities. c) No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site, resulting in greater stormwater runoff. However, the proposed stormwater retention basin is designed to incorporate the proposed project’s stormwater as well as that of the existing PJ Helicopters facilities’ on-site drainage. The project would not require the extension of existing city stormwater drainage facilities or new city facilities to serve the project. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to stormwater. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be provided domestic water service by the City of Red Bluff. Based on existing water use at the existing PJ Helicopters facilities, anticipated water use for the proposed project has been estimated. The proposed project would require approximately 16,800 gallons per month (0.62 AF per year) from the City.2

As shown in Table 4.17-1, the City is expected to have a demand of 4,601 AF per year of water by the year 2020, an increase of 1,435 AF since 2015. The additional demand of 0.62 AF per year from the project would not result in an exceedance of anticipated water demand or supply. Because groundwater serves as the source of the City’s water, allocated supply is not a factor in the 2015 UWMP. The City would pump sufficient amounts of groundwater to supply the needs of its water customers. As such, this impact is considered less than significant. e) No Impact. As previously stated, the project proposes to construct an on-site septic system. Therefore, construction of new or expansion of existing City wastewater facilities is not required. f) Less Than Significant Impact. Because no increase in employment is anticipated with development of the proposed project, the project would not significantly increase the amount of solid waste already generated at the PJ Helicopters facilities. The Tehama County/Red Bluff Landfill is projected to have adequate capacity through 2040. Once this landfill is closed, the City would have to find an alternative disposal site. The proposed project would not increase solid waste in the city and existing landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the

2 1 acre-foot = 325,851gallons. 16,800 gallons/month X 12 months = 201,600 gallons/year. 201,600 gallons/year = 0.62 AF per year. City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-55 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

relatively minor amounts of waste that would be generated by the proposed project. The impact is less than significant impact. g) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is required to comply with all state and federal statutes regarding solid waste. This impact is less than significant.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-56 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Less Than Significant Potentially Impact With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-life population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are

considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS a) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Three subsections in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) have identified the potential for significant environmental impacts: subsections 4.4, Biological Resources; 4.5, Cultural Resources; and 4.6, Geology and Soils. However, with implementation of mitigation measures proposed in the relevant subsections of this IS/MND, these potential impacts would be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project, in conjunction with other approved or pending projects in the region, has the potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to the physical environment. However, with implementation of mitigation measures proposed in the relevant subsections of this IS/MND, these potential impacts would be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in impacts that would potentially result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts regarding air quality, greenhouse gas emissions/climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, traffic and circulation, or any other impact area that would directly or indirectly affect people.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0-57 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

This page is intentionally left blank.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 4.0-58

5.0 REFERENCES

5.0 REFERENCES

5.1 DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN INITIAL STUDY AND/OR INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

The following documents were used or to determine the potential for impact from the proposed project. Compliance with federal, state, and local laws is assumed in all projects.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA – Red Bluff [map]. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/tehama/Red_Bluff.pdf.

CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2016a. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Detail. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/jurisdiction/diversiondisposal.aspx.

———. 2016b. SWIS Facility/Site Search. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory /Search.aspx.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations.

———. 2004. Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2016. 2015 Area Designation Maps. Accessed November 18, 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015. California Regional Conservation Plans.

CGS (California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey). 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/cgs_notes/note_36/Docu ments/note_36.pdf.

———. 2008. Earthquake Shaking Potential for California [map]. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/publications/ms/documents/ms48_revi sed.pdf.

———. 2010a. Fault Activity Map of California. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/.

———. 2010b. An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/cgs_history/Documents/FAM_phamplet.pdf.

CRU (Cultural Resources Unlimited). 1989. A Cultural Resources Survey for the Tehama County Jail Site, Red Bluff, California. Report on file, NE/CHRIS.

DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2011. Tehama County Williamson Act FY 2010/2011. Accessed December 16, 2016. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/.

———. 2014. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed December 16, 2016. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx.

DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2016. EnviroStor [database]. Accessed December 21. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

DuBois, C. 1935. “Wintu Ethnography.” In University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 3 (1): 1–148. Berkeley: University of California.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0-1 5.0 REFERENCES

DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2004a. California Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, Red Bluff Subbasin. http://wwwdwr.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/sacramentoriver.cfm.

———. 2004b. California Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, Antelope Subbasin. http://wwwdwr.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/sacramentoriver.cfm.

———. 2016a. Groundwater Level Change – Spring 2006 to Spring 2016. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/maps_and_reports/index.cfm.

———. 2016b. Groundwater Level Change – Spring 2015 to Spring 2016. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/maps_and_reports/index.cfm.

ENPLAN. 2016a. Biological/Wetland Screening of the PJ Helicopters Expansion Project.

———. 2016b. Cultural Resources Survey, PJ Helicopters Expansion Project, Tehama County, California.

EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2011. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06103C0788H, September 29, 2011. Accessed November 18, 2016. https://msc.fema.gov/portal.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model.

FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

Goldschmidt, Walter R. 1951. “Nomlaki Ethnography.” In University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 42(4): 303–443. Berkeley: University of California.

———. 1978. Nomlaki in California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 341–348. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Johnson, J., and D. Theodoratus. 1982 Cottonwood Creek Project, Shasta and Tehama Counties, California: Tehama Lake Intensive Cultural Resources Survey. Report on file, US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, CA.

Kraft, Jarith, and Barbara Woodrum. 2005. Historical Overview of the Tehama-Shasta Bend District, California. Report #6776 on file at NE/CHRIS. Also on file at the BLM Field Office, Redding, CA.

Kroeber, Alfred L. (1925) 1976. Handbook of the Indians of California. Reprint, New York: Dover Publications. Originally published 1925, Bulletin No. 78, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Merriam, C. H. 1966. “Ethnographic Notes on California Indian Tribes.” In University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 68, Parts I, II, and III. Berkeley: University of California.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 1998. Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 5.0-2 5.0 REFERENCES

RBFD (Red Bluff Fire Department). 2016a. Fire Department Personnel. http://rbfd.org/roster.html.

———. 2016b. Fire Department Apparatus. http://rbfd.org/Apparatus.html.

RBPD (Red Bluff Police Department). 2016. Personnel Roster. http://www.rbpd.org/staff.php.

Red Bluff, City of. 1991. City of Red Bluff General Plan – Circulation Element.

———. 1993. City of Red Bluff General Plan – Land Use, Natural Environment, Noise, and Safety Elements.

______. 2001. Tehama County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

———. 2014a. City of Red Bluff General Plan – Housing Element.

———. 2014b. City of Red Bluff Consumer Confidence Report – Public Water System #5210004. http://www.cityofredbluff.org/publicnotices/.

———. 2016a. Public Works Department – Wastewater Treatment Plant website. http://www.cityofredbluff.org/citydepartments/publicworks/wtp.php.

———. 2016b. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (public review draft).

Robinson, W. W. 1948. Land in California, the Story of Mission Lands, Ranchos, Squatters, Mining Claims, Railroad Grants, Land Scrip, Homesteads. Berkeley: University of California Press.

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2016. GeoTracker [database]. Accessed December 21. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov.

TCALUC (Tehama County Airport Land Use Commission). 2015. Tehama County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

TCAPCD (Tehama County Air Pollution Control District). 2015. Air Quality Planning & Permitting Handbook. http://www.tehcoapcd.net/ceqa_pph.html.

Tehama County. 2012. Hazard Mitigation Plan. http://www.tehamacountypublicworks.ca.gov/default.html.

USGS (US Geological Survey). 1989. Swelling clays map of the conterminous United States. USGS Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1940. http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_10014.htm.

———. 2016. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. http://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html.

Vaughan, Trudy. 1998. Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Two Bridge Replacement Projects on South Jackson Street (Bridges 8C-55 & 8C-170), Red Bluff, Tehama County, California. Report #1913 on file, NE/CHRIS.

———. 2002. Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Proposed City of Red Bluff Reservoir and Pipeline Project, Red Bluff, Tehama County, California. Report #4758 on file, NE/CHRIS.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project February 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0-3 5.0 REFERENCES

This page is intentionally left blank

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2017 5.0-4

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 4.3 - AIR QUALITY

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project Tehama County, Summer

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 31.91 1000sqft 0.73 31,910.00 0

Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 54.00 1000sqft 1.24 54,000.00 0

Parking Lot 36.00 Space 0.32 14,400.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 3.1 Precipitation Freq (Days) 68

Climate Zone 3 Operational Year 2018

Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - Off-road Equipment - Vehicle Trips - No new trips. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Off-road Equipment - Equipment hours/day per project applicant. Off-road Equipment - Equipment hours/day per project applicant. Off-road Equipment - Equipment hours/day per project applicant. Off-road Equipment - Equipment hours/day per project applicant. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 3 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 40 0

tblGrading AcresOfGrading 2.63 3.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.68 0.00

tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.68 0.00

tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.68 0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year lb/day lb/day

2017 3.4789 23.7973 18.2801 0.0318 5.8817 1.3966 7.0688 2.9755 1.3337 4.0676 0.0000 3,067.948 3,067.948 0.6173 0.0000 3,083.381 4 4 1

2018 3.0184 21.4368 17.2462 0.0317 0.4535 1.1894 1.6430 0.1228 1.1371 1.2599 0.0000 3,038.731 3,038.731 0.5826 0.0000 3,053.295 9 9 6

Maximum 3.4789 23.7973 18.2801 0.0318 5.8817 1.3966 7.0688 2.9755 1.3337 4.0676 0.0000 3,067.948 3,067.948 0.6173 0.0000 3,083.381 4 4 1

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year lb/day lb/day

2017 3.4789 23.7973 18.2801 0.0318 5.8817 1.3966 7.0688 2.9755 1.3337 4.0676 0.0000 3,067.948 3,067.948 0.6173 0.0000 3,083.381 4 4 1

2018 3.0184 21.4368 17.2462 0.0317 0.4535 1.1894 1.6430 0.1228 1.1371 1.2599 0.0000 3,038.731 3,038.731 0.5826 0.0000 3,053.295 9 9 6

Maximum 3.4789 23.7973 18.2801 0.0318 5.8817 1.3966 7.0688 2.9755 1.3337 4.0676 0.0000 3,067.948 3,067.948 0.6173 0.0000 3,083.381 4 4 1

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 0.7083 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 004 005 005 005 005 005

Energy 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 004 003 003

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.7254 0.1558 0.1434 9.3000e- 0.0000 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 0.0119 0.0119 186.8069 186.8069 3.6500e- 3.4200e- 187.9187 004 003 003

Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 0.7083 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 004 005 005 005 005 005

Energy 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 004 003 003

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.7254 0.1558 0.1434 9.3000e- 0.0000 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 0.0119 0.0119 186.8069 186.8069 3.6500e- 3.4200e- 187.9187 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week

1 Grading Grading 4/1/2017 4/10/2017 5 6

2 Building Construction Building Construction 4/11/2017 2/12/2018 5 220

3 Paving Paving 2/13/2018 2/26/2018 5 10

4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/27/2018 3/12/2018 5 10

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3

Acres of Paving: 1.56

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 4,104 (Architectural Coating – sqft)

OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Grading Graders 1 7.00 187 0.41

Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247 0.40

Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37

Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29

Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20

Building Construction Generator Sets 1 7.00 84 0.74

Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37

Building Construction Welders 3 7.00 46 0.45

Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 7.00 9 0.56

Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42

Paving Paving Equipment 1 7.00 132 0.36

Paving Rollers 2 7.00 80 0.38

Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37

Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 7.00 78 0.48

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class

Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Building Construction 8 42.00 16.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Architectural Coating 1 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Clean Paved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

3.2 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 5.7996 0.0000 5.7996 2.9537 0.0000 2.9537 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 2.1004 23.5596 9.9521 0.0187 1.1863 1.1863 1.0914 1.0914 1,917.779 1,917.779 0.5876 1,932.470 9 9 0

Total 2.1004 23.5596 9.9521 0.0187 5.7996 1.1863 6.9859 2.9537 1.0914 4.0451 1,917.779 1,917.779 0.5876 1,932.470 9 9 0

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0754 0.0517 0.5991 9.6000e- 0.0822 7.3000e- 0.0829 0.0218 6.8000e- 0.0225 95.3035 95.3035 5.3900e- 95.4382 004 004 004 003

Total 0.0754 0.0517 0.5991 9.6000e- 0.0822 7.3000e- 0.0829 0.0218 6.8000e- 0.0225 95.3035 95.3035 5.3900e- 95.4382 004 004 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 9 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

3.2 Grading - 2017 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 5.7996 0.0000 5.7996 2.9537 0.0000 2.9537 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 2.1004 23.5596 9.9521 0.0187 1.1863 1.1863 1.0914 1.0914 0.0000 1,917.779 1,917.779 0.5876 1,932.470 9 9 0

Total 2.1004 23.5596 9.9521 0.0187 5.7996 1.1863 6.9859 2.9537 1.0914 4.0451 0.0000 1,917.779 1,917.779 0.5876 1,932.470 9 9 0

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0754 0.0517 0.5991 9.6000e- 0.0822 7.3000e- 0.0829 0.0218 6.8000e- 0.0225 95.3035 95.3035 5.3900e- 95.4382 004 004 004 003

Total 0.0754 0.0517 0.5991 9.6000e- 0.0822 7.3000e- 0.0829 0.0218 6.8000e- 0.0225 95.3035 95.3035 5.3900e- 95.4382 004 004 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

3.3 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 3.0396 21.2155 15.0683 0.0229 1.3690 1.3690 1.3073 1.3073 2,157.969 2,157.969 0.4893 2,170.202 6 6 0

Total 3.0396 21.2155 15.0683 0.0229 1.3690 1.3690 1.3073 1.3073 2,157.969 2,157.969 0.4893 2,170.202 6 6 0

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.1229 2.3647 0.6958 4.8800e- 0.1085 0.0245 0.1330 0.0312 0.0235 0.0547 509.7040 509.7040 0.1054 512.3388 003

Worker 0.3165 0.2172 2.5160 4.0400e- 0.3450 3.0800e- 0.3481 0.0915 2.8500e- 0.0944 400.2748 400.2748 0.0226 400.8403 003 003 003

Total 0.4394 2.5818 3.2118 8.9200e- 0.4535 0.0276 0.4811 0.1228 0.0263 0.1491 909.9788 909.9788 0.1280 913.1791 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

3.3 Building Construction - 2017 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 3.0396 21.2155 15.0683 0.0229 1.3690 1.3690 1.3073 1.3073 0.0000 2,157.969 2,157.969 0.4893 2,170.202 6 6 0

Total 3.0396 21.2155 15.0683 0.0229 1.3690 1.3690 1.3073 1.3073 0.0000 2,157.969 2,157.969 0.4893 2,170.202 6 6 0

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.1229 2.3647 0.6958 4.8800e- 0.1085 0.0245 0.1330 0.0312 0.0235 0.0547 509.7040 509.7040 0.1054 512.3388 003

Worker 0.3165 0.2172 2.5160 4.0400e- 0.3450 3.0800e- 0.3481 0.0915 2.8500e- 0.0944 400.2748 400.2748 0.0226 400.8403 003 003 003

Total 0.4394 2.5818 3.2118 8.9200e- 0.4535 0.0276 0.4811 0.1228 0.0263 0.1491 909.9788 909.9788 0.1280 913.1791 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

3.3 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.6458 19.0389 14.5296 0.0229 1.1685 1.1685 1.1172 1.1172 2,140.614 2,140.614 0.4709 2,152.387 7 7 9

Total 2.6458 19.0389 14.5296 0.0229 1.1685 1.1685 1.1172 1.1172 2,140.614 2,140.614 0.4709 2,152.387 7 7 9

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0997 2.2122 0.5741 4.8700e- 0.1085 0.0180 0.1265 0.0313 0.0172 0.0485 508.9147 508.9147 0.0921 511.2181 003

Worker 0.2729 0.1858 2.1425 3.9200e- 0.3450 2.8800e- 0.3479 0.0915 2.6600e- 0.0942 389.2025 389.2025 0.0195 389.6896 003 003 003

Total 0.3726 2.3980 2.7166 8.7900e- 0.4535 0.0209 0.4744 0.1228 0.0199 0.1427 898.1172 898.1172 0.1116 900.9077 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

3.3 Building Construction - 2018 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.6458 19.0389 14.5296 0.0229 1.1685 1.1685 1.1172 1.1172 0.0000 2,140.614 2,140.614 0.4709 2,152.387 7 7 9

Total 2.6458 19.0389 14.5296 0.0229 1.1685 1.1685 1.1172 1.1172 0.0000 2,140.614 2,140.614 0.4709 2,152.387 7 7 9

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0997 2.2122 0.5741 4.8700e- 0.1085 0.0180 0.1265 0.0313 0.0172 0.0485 508.9147 508.9147 0.0921 511.2181 003

Worker 0.2729 0.1858 2.1425 3.9200e- 0.3450 2.8800e- 0.3479 0.0915 2.6600e- 0.0942 389.2025 389.2025 0.0195 389.6896 003 003 003

Total 0.3726 2.3980 2.7166 8.7900e- 0.4535 0.0209 0.4744 0.1228 0.0199 0.1427 898.1172 898.1172 0.1116 900.9077 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

3.4 Paving - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 1.2291 12.4703 10.4814 0.0156 0.7441 0.7441 0.6856 0.6856 1,552.462 1,552.462 0.4741 1,564.315 6 6 9

Paving 0.0838 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.3129 12.4703 10.4814 0.0156 0.7441 0.7441 0.6856 0.6856 1,552.462 1,552.462 0.4741 1,564.315 6 6 9

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0975 0.0663 0.7652 1.4000e- 0.1232 1.0300e- 0.1243 0.0327 9.5000e- 0.0336 139.0009 139.0009 6.9600e- 139.1749 003 003 004 003

Total 0.0975 0.0663 0.7652 1.4000e- 0.1232 1.0300e- 0.1243 0.0327 9.5000e- 0.0336 139.0009 139.0009 6.9600e- 139.1749 003 003 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

3.4 Paving - 2018 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 1.2291 12.4703 10.4814 0.0156 0.7441 0.7441 0.6856 0.6856 0.0000 1,552.462 1,552.462 0.4741 1,564.315 6 6 9

Paving 0.0838 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.3129 12.4703 10.4814 0.0156 0.7441 0.7441 0.6856 0.6856 0.0000 1,552.462 1,552.462 0.4741 1,564.315 6 6 9

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0975 0.0663 0.7652 1.4000e- 0.1232 1.0300e- 0.1243 0.0327 9.5000e- 0.0336 139.0009 139.0009 6.9600e- 139.1749 003 003 004 003

Total 0.0975 0.0663 0.7652 1.4000e- 0.1232 1.0300e- 0.1243 0.0327 9.5000e- 0.0336 139.0009 139.0009 6.9600e- 139.1749 003 003 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 0.3484 2.3400 2.1632 3.4700e- 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 328.3566 328.3566 0.0312 329.1367 003

Total 0.3484 2.3400 2.1632 3.4700e- 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 328.3566 328.3566 0.0312 329.1367 003

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0520 0.0354 0.4081 7.5000e- 0.0657 5.5000e- 0.0663 0.0174 5.1000e- 0.0179 74.1338 74.1338 3.7100e- 74.2266 004 004 004 003

Total 0.0520 0.0354 0.4081 7.5000e- 0.0657 5.5000e- 0.0663 0.0174 5.1000e- 0.0179 74.1338 74.1338 3.7100e- 74.2266 004 004 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 17 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2018 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 0.3484 2.3400 2.1632 3.4700e- 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 0.0000 328.3566 328.3566 0.0312 329.1367 003

Total 0.3484 2.3400 2.1632 3.4700e- 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 0.0000 328.3566 328.3566 0.0312 329.1367 003

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0520 0.0354 0.4081 7.5000e- 0.0657 5.5000e- 0.0663 0.0174 5.1000e- 0.0179 74.1338 74.1338 3.7100e- 74.2266 004 004 004 003

Total 0.0520 0.0354 0.4081 7.5000e- 0.0657 5.5000e- 0.0663 0.0174 5.1000e- 0.0179 74.1338 74.1338 3.7100e- 74.2266 004 004 004 003

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No 9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3 Rail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

4.4 Fleet Mix

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No 0.502796 0.032957 0.161982 0.123835 0.041973 0.008777 0.008517 0.108621 0.001274 0.001436 0.005431 0.000935 0.001467 Rail Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.502796 0.032957 0.161982 0.123835 0.041973 0.008777 0.008517 0.108621 0.001274 0.001436 0.005431 0.000935 0.001467

Parking Lot 0.502796 0.032957 0.161982 0.123835 0.041973 0.008777 0.008517 0.108621 0.001274 0.001436 0.005431 0.000935 0.001467

5.0 Energy Detail

Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

NaturalGas 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 Mitigated 004 003 003

NaturalGas 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 Unmitigated 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

Other Non- 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces

Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unrefrigerated 1587.63 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 Warehouse-No 004 003 003 Rail Total 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 004 003 003

Mitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

Other Non- 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces

Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unrefrigerated 1.58763 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 Warehouse-No 004 003 003 Rail Total 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 0.7083 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 004 005 005 005 005 005

Unmitigated 0.7083 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 004 005 005 005 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.7071 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 1.2100e- 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 003 004 005 005 005 005 005

Total 0.7083 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 004 005 005 005 005 005

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.7071 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 1.2100e- 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 003 004 005 005 005 005 005

Total 0.7083 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 004 005 005 005 005 005

7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 23 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:10 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Summer 7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment

Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

Boilers

Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type

User Defined Equipment

Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project Tehama County, Winter

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 31.91 1000sqft 0.73 31,910.00 0

Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 54.00 1000sqft 1.24 54,000.00 0

Parking Lot 36.00 Space 0.32 14,400.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 3.1 Precipitation Freq (Days) 68

Climate Zone 3 Operational Year 2018

Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - Off-road Equipment - Vehicle Trips - No new trips. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Off-road Equipment - Equipment hours/day per project applicant. Off-road Equipment - Equipment hours/day per project applicant. Off-road Equipment - Equipment hours/day per project applicant. Off-road Equipment - Equipment hours/day per project applicant. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 3 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 40 0

tblGrading AcresOfGrading 2.63 3.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.68 0.00

tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.68 0.00

tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.68 0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year lb/day lb/day

2017 3.4761 23.9263 18.3057 0.0312 5.8817 1.3972 7.0688 2.9755 1.3342 4.0676 0.0000 3,006.443 3,006.443 0.6290 0.0000 3,022.168 0 0 2

2018 3.0126 21.5454 17.2422 0.0311 0.4535 1.1898 1.6433 0.1228 1.1375 1.2602 0.0000 2,977.792 2,977.792 0.5931 0.0000 2,992.618 2 2 7

Maximum 3.4761 23.9263 18.3057 0.0312 5.8817 1.3972 7.0688 2.9755 1.3342 4.0676 0.0000 3,006.443 3,006.443 0.6290 0.0000 3,022.168 0 0 2

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year lb/day lb/day

2017 3.4761 23.9263 18.3057 0.0312 5.8817 1.3972 7.0688 2.9755 1.3342 4.0676 0.0000 3,006.443 3,006.443 0.6290 0.0000 3,022.168 0 0 2

2018 3.0126 21.5454 17.2422 0.0311 0.4535 1.1898 1.6433 0.1228 1.1375 1.2602 0.0000 2,977.792 2,977.792 0.5931 0.0000 2,992.618 2 2 7

Maximum 3.4761 23.9263 18.3057 0.0312 5.8817 1.3972 7.0688 2.9755 1.3342 4.0676 0.0000 3,006.443 3,006.443 0.6290 0.0000 3,022.168 0 0 2

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 0.7083 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 004 005 005 005 005 005

Energy 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 004 003 003

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.7254 0.1558 0.1434 9.3000e- 0.0000 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 0.0119 0.0119 186.8069 186.8069 3.6500e- 3.4200e- 187.9187 004 003 003

Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 0.7083 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 004 005 005 005 005 005

Energy 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 004 003 003

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.7254 0.1558 0.1434 9.3000e- 0.0000 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 0.0119 0.0119 186.8069 186.8069 3.6500e- 3.4200e- 187.9187 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week

1 Grading Grading 4/1/2017 4/10/2017 5 6

2 Building Construction Building Construction 4/11/2017 2/12/2018 5 220

3 Paving Paving 2/13/2018 2/26/2018 5 10

4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/27/2018 3/12/2018 5 10

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3

Acres of Paving: 1.56

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 4,104 (Architectural Coating – sqft)

OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Grading Graders 1 7.00 187 0.41

Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247 0.40

Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37

Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29

Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20

Building Construction Generator Sets 1 7.00 84 0.74

Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37

Building Construction Welders 3 7.00 46 0.45

Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 7.00 9 0.56

Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42

Paving Paving Equipment 1 7.00 132 0.36

Paving Rollers 2 7.00 80 0.38

Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37

Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 7.00 78 0.48

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class

Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Building Construction 8 42.00 16.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Architectural Coating 1 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Clean Paved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

3.2 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 5.7996 0.0000 5.7996 2.9537 0.0000 2.9537 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 2.1004 23.5596 9.9521 0.0187 1.1863 1.1863 1.0914 1.0914 1,917.779 1,917.779 0.5876 1,932.470 9 9 0

Total 2.1004 23.5596 9.9521 0.0187 5.7996 1.1863 6.9859 2.9537 1.0914 4.0451 1,917.779 1,917.779 0.5876 1,932.470 9 9 0

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0730 0.0679 0.5743 8.6000e- 0.0822 7.3000e- 0.0829 0.0218 6.8000e- 0.0225 84.7432 84.7432 5.0500e- 84.8694 004 004 004 003

Total 0.0730 0.0679 0.5743 8.6000e- 0.0822 7.3000e- 0.0829 0.0218 6.8000e- 0.0225 84.7432 84.7432 5.0500e- 84.8694 004 004 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 9 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

3.2 Grading - 2017 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Fugitive Dust 5.7996 0.0000 5.7996 2.9537 0.0000 2.9537 0.0000 0.0000

Off-Road 2.1004 23.5596 9.9521 0.0187 1.1863 1.1863 1.0914 1.0914 0.0000 1,917.779 1,917.779 0.5876 1,932.470 9 9 0

Total 2.1004 23.5596 9.9521 0.0187 5.7996 1.1863 6.9859 2.9537 1.0914 4.0451 0.0000 1,917.779 1,917.779 0.5876 1,932.470 9 9 0

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0730 0.0679 0.5743 8.6000e- 0.0822 7.3000e- 0.0829 0.0218 6.8000e- 0.0225 84.7432 84.7432 5.0500e- 84.8694 004 004 004 003

Total 0.0730 0.0679 0.5743 8.6000e- 0.0822 7.3000e- 0.0829 0.0218 6.8000e- 0.0225 84.7432 84.7432 5.0500e- 84.8694 004 004 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

3.3 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 3.0396 21.2155 15.0683 0.0229 1.3690 1.3690 1.3073 1.3073 2,157.969 2,157.969 0.4893 2,170.202 6 6 0

Total 3.0396 21.2155 15.0683 0.0229 1.3690 1.3690 1.3073 1.3073 2,157.969 2,157.969 0.4893 2,170.202 6 6 0

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.1301 2.4258 0.8253 4.7200e- 0.1085 0.0251 0.1336 0.0312 0.0240 0.0553 492.5520 492.5520 0.1185 495.5146 003

Worker 0.3064 0.2850 2.4121 3.5900e- 0.3450 3.0800e- 0.3481 0.0915 2.8500e- 0.0944 355.9214 355.9214 0.0212 356.4516 003 003 003

Total 0.4366 2.7108 3.2374 8.3100e- 0.4535 0.0282 0.4817 0.1228 0.0269 0.1496 848.4734 848.4734 0.1397 851.9662 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

3.3 Building Construction - 2017 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 3.0396 21.2155 15.0683 0.0229 1.3690 1.3690 1.3073 1.3073 0.0000 2,157.969 2,157.969 0.4893 2,170.202 6 6 0

Total 3.0396 21.2155 15.0683 0.0229 1.3690 1.3690 1.3073 1.3073 0.0000 2,157.969 2,157.969 0.4893 2,170.202 6 6 0

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.1301 2.4258 0.8253 4.7200e- 0.1085 0.0251 0.1336 0.0312 0.0240 0.0553 492.5520 492.5520 0.1185 495.5146 003

Worker 0.3064 0.2850 2.4121 3.5900e- 0.3450 3.0800e- 0.3481 0.0915 2.8500e- 0.0944 355.9214 355.9214 0.0212 356.4516 003 003 003

Total 0.4366 2.7108 3.2374 8.3100e- 0.4535 0.0282 0.4817 0.1228 0.0269 0.1496 848.4734 848.4734 0.1397 851.9662 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

3.3 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.6458 19.0389 14.5296 0.0229 1.1685 1.1685 1.1172 1.1172 2,140.614 2,140.614 0.4709 2,152.387 7 7 9

Total 2.6458 19.0389 14.5296 0.0229 1.1685 1.1685 1.1172 1.1172 2,140.614 2,140.614 0.4709 2,152.387 7 7 9

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.1054 2.2628 0.6853 4.7100e- 0.1085 0.0184 0.1269 0.0313 0.0176 0.0488 491.2525 491.2525 0.1041 493.8542 003

Worker 0.2614 0.2437 2.0272 3.4900e- 0.3450 2.8800e- 0.3479 0.0915 2.6600e- 0.0942 345.9251 345.9251 0.0181 346.3766 003 003 003

Total 0.3668 2.5065 2.7125 8.2000e- 0.4535 0.0213 0.4748 0.1228 0.0203 0.1430 837.1775 837.1775 0.1221 840.2308 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

3.3 Building Construction - 2018 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 2.6458 19.0389 14.5296 0.0229 1.1685 1.1685 1.1172 1.1172 0.0000 2,140.614 2,140.614 0.4709 2,152.387 7 7 9

Total 2.6458 19.0389 14.5296 0.0229 1.1685 1.1685 1.1172 1.1172 0.0000 2,140.614 2,140.614 0.4709 2,152.387 7 7 9

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.1054 2.2628 0.6853 4.7100e- 0.1085 0.0184 0.1269 0.0313 0.0176 0.0488 491.2525 491.2525 0.1041 493.8542 003

Worker 0.2614 0.2437 2.0272 3.4900e- 0.3450 2.8800e- 0.3479 0.0915 2.6600e- 0.0942 345.9251 345.9251 0.0181 346.3766 003 003 003

Total 0.3668 2.5065 2.7125 8.2000e- 0.4535 0.0213 0.4748 0.1228 0.0203 0.1430 837.1775 837.1775 0.1221 840.2308 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

3.4 Paving - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 1.2291 12.4703 10.4814 0.0156 0.7441 0.7441 0.6856 0.6856 1,552.462 1,552.462 0.4741 1,564.315 6 6 9

Paving 0.0838 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.3129 12.4703 10.4814 0.0156 0.7441 0.7441 0.6856 0.6856 1,552.462 1,552.462 0.4741 1,564.315 6 6 9

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0933 0.0871 0.7240 1.2500e- 0.1232 1.0300e- 0.1243 0.0327 9.5000e- 0.0336 123.5447 123.5447 6.4500e- 123.7059 003 003 004 003

Total 0.0933 0.0871 0.7240 1.2500e- 0.1232 1.0300e- 0.1243 0.0327 9.5000e- 0.0336 123.5447 123.5447 6.4500e- 123.7059 003 003 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

3.4 Paving - 2018 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 1.2291 12.4703 10.4814 0.0156 0.7441 0.7441 0.6856 0.6856 0.0000 1,552.462 1,552.462 0.4741 1,564.315 6 6 9

Paving 0.0838 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.3129 12.4703 10.4814 0.0156 0.7441 0.7441 0.6856 0.6856 0.0000 1,552.462 1,552.462 0.4741 1,564.315 6 6 9

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0933 0.0871 0.7240 1.2500e- 0.1232 1.0300e- 0.1243 0.0327 9.5000e- 0.0336 123.5447 123.5447 6.4500e- 123.7059 003 003 004 003

Total 0.0933 0.0871 0.7240 1.2500e- 0.1232 1.0300e- 0.1243 0.0327 9.5000e- 0.0336 123.5447 123.5447 6.4500e- 123.7059 003 003 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 0.3484 2.3400 2.1632 3.4700e- 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 328.3566 328.3566 0.0312 329.1367 003

Total 0.3484 2.3400 2.1632 3.4700e- 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 328.3566 328.3566 0.0312 329.1367 003

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0498 0.0464 0.3861 6.6000e- 0.0657 5.5000e- 0.0663 0.0174 5.1000e- 0.0179 65.8905 65.8905 3.4400e- 65.9765 004 004 004 003

Total 0.0498 0.0464 0.3861 6.6000e- 0.0657 5.5000e- 0.0663 0.0174 5.1000e- 0.0179 65.8905 65.8905 3.4400e- 65.9765 004 004 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 17 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2018 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Off-Road 0.3484 2.3400 2.1632 3.4700e- 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 0.0000 328.3566 328.3566 0.0312 329.1367 003

Total 0.3484 2.3400 2.1632 3.4700e- 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 0.1757 0.0000 328.3566 328.3566 0.0312 329.1367 003

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 0.0498 0.0464 0.3861 6.6000e- 0.0657 5.5000e- 0.0663 0.0174 5.1000e- 0.0179 65.8905 65.8905 3.4400e- 65.9765 004 004 004 003

Total 0.0498 0.0464 0.3861 6.6000e- 0.0657 5.5000e- 0.0663 0.0174 5.1000e- 0.0179 65.8905 65.8905 3.4400e- 65.9765 004 004 004 003

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No 9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3 Rail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

4.4 Fleet Mix

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No 0.502796 0.032957 0.161982 0.123835 0.041973 0.008777 0.008517 0.108621 0.001274 0.001436 0.005431 0.000935 0.001467 Rail Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.502796 0.032957 0.161982 0.123835 0.041973 0.008777 0.008517 0.108621 0.001274 0.001436 0.005431 0.000935 0.001467

Parking Lot 0.502796 0.032957 0.161982 0.123835 0.041973 0.008777 0.008517 0.108621 0.001274 0.001436 0.005431 0.000935 0.001467

5.0 Energy Detail

Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

NaturalGas 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 Mitigated 004 003 003

NaturalGas 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 Unmitigated 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

Other Non- 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces

Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unrefrigerated 1587.63 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 Warehouse-No 004 003 003 Rail Total 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 004 003 003

Mitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

Other Non- 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces

Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unrefrigerated 1.58763 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 Warehouse-No 004 003 003 Rail Total 0.0171 0.1557 0.1308 9.3000e- 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118 186.7802 186.7802 3.5800e- 3.4200e- 187.8902 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 0.7083 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 004 005 005 005 005 005

Unmitigated 0.7083 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 004 005 005 005 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.7071 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 1.2100e- 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 003 004 005 005 005 005 005

Total 0.7083 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 004 005 005 005 005 005

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.7071 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 1.2100e- 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 003 004 005 005 005 005 005

Total 0.7083 1.2000e- 0.0126 0.0000 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 5.0000e- 0.0267 0.0267 7.0000e- 0.0285 004 005 005 005 005 005

7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 23 of 23 Date: 1/20/2017 12:12 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Winter 7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment

Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

Boilers

Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type

User Defined Equipment

Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation

APPENDIX 4.4 - BIOLOGICAL/WETLAND SCREENING REPORT

608-01 August 24, 2016

Bret Wood North Valley Building Systems 30 Seville Court Chico, CA 95928

SUBJECT: Biological/Wetland Screening for the PJ Helicopters Expansion Project

This is to confirm that ENPLAN has conducted a biological and wetland screening for a ±12.2-acre site generally located along Langley Way and South Jackson Street east of the existing PJ Helicopters facility, in the City of Red Bluff, Tehama County. The study area consists of portions of Tehama County Assessor’s Parcel 035-021-004 and -005. As shown in Figure 1, the study area is located in the southeastern quarter of Section 31, Township 27 North, Range 3 West, of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Red Bluff East 7.5-minute quadrangle. The study area is situated at approximately 330 feet in elevation, and is situated on a low, gently sloping knoll that drains to the north, south, and east.

The proposed project consists of construction of a new hangar, a paved parking lot, and a graveled parking area. A new water line and drainage system would also be constructed. The new water line would originate at an existing water main on South Jackson Street near Spyglass Drive, extend south on South Jackson Street (keeping within the road right-of-way on the west side of the street) to Langley Way, and extend west on Langley Way to the new hangar. Along Langley Way, the water line could be entirely on the south side of the road, or up to the first ±300 feet could be on the north side of the road.

Three options are currently being considered for site drainage. Runoff may be: 1) be pumped to a roadside drainage on the south side of Langley Drive, which drains to a drop inlet at the intersection of Langley and South Jackson, 2) enter a deep gravity-flow line that would extend from the hangar site northeast to a point on Langley Drive about 300 feet east of South Jackson, where it would discharge to the roadside ditch and then enter the drop inlet, or 3) discharge to a new percolation/evaporation basin northwest of the new hangar. Under the latter option, 100-year storm flows would be retained within the basin, but higher flows would discharge from a pipe outlet and sheet-flow roughly 300 feet to the north, to a small stream that is tributary to the south fork of Grasshopper Creek, which is tributary to the Sacramento River.

Biological Evaluation Records Review Various records were reviewed to obtain information on reported occurrences of special-status species in the project vicinity. Records reviewed for this evaluation consisted of California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) records, critical habitat

ENPLAN • 3179 Bechelli Lane, Suite 100, Redding, CA 96002 • 530/221-0440 • FAX 530/221-6963 • www.enplan.com \\nas\shared\companyfiles\01-Jobs Active\606-01 North Valley Building Systems - PJ Helicopters Expansion\1-Documents\Environmental Screening Report 8-24-16.docx Bret Wood August 24, 2016 Page 2

GIS data maintained by the National Marine Fisheries Service and United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and in-house biological records.

Field Surveys ENPLAN conducted biological surveys of the study area on June 7, August 5, and August 22, 2016. Some of the special-status species potentially occurring in the area would have been evident at the time the fieldwork was conducted. The potential presence of species not readily identifiable during the field studies was determined on the basis of observed habitat characteristics. The survey was conducted too late in the season to detect a number of annual plants that are expected to occur on the site; however, the survey was sufficient to determine the potential for special-status plant species to be present.

Natural Communities The plant communities and wildlife habitats in the study area are limited to annual grassland. The grassland consists of a dense stand of annual grasses extending to a height of about 1.5 feet. Common species include slender wild oats, ripgut brome, and medusa-head. A number of native and introduced forbs are present among the grasses, including yellow star-thistle, filarees, bicolored lupine, rose clover, Spanish lotus, Fitch’s spikeweed, and puccoon. The annual grassland species typically germinate after the onset of late-fall rains; growth, flowering, and seed-set occur from winter through spring, and the plants are dead through the summer-fall season, persisting as seeds.

Annual grasslands provide moderate habitat values for wildlife. Species commonly found in annual grasslands include western fence lizards, garter snakes, rattlesnakes, gopher snakes, black-tailed jackrabbits, California ground squirrels, California voles, coyotes, savannah sparrows, and western meadowlarks. A number of other species may forage in annual grasslands, but require other habitats for breeding, resting, and escape cover.

Only one feature potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, was observed in the study area boundary. This consists of the south fork of Grasshopper Creek, which flows under South Jackson Street near the northern terminus of the study area. A large box culvert conveys the stream flow under the street. The stream bottom is overcovered by an asphalt pad that extends approximately 30 feet upstream of the box culvert. The proposed water line may be attached to the box culvert or may be installed in a trench excavated within the asphalt pad; in either case, no significant biological/wetland impacts would occur provided that work occurs in the dry season.

Several vernal pools/swales were observed on adjoining lands. Three vernal pools were observed on the north side of Langley Way, just west of the proposed detention basin site and a swale/pool system is present to the east of the detention basin site. In addition, several pools/swales were observed in the southwestern quadrant of the Bret Wood August 24, 2016 Page 3

Langley Road/South Jackson Street intersection, roughly 600 feet east of the hangar site. The wetland features closest to the study area are shown on Figure 2.

An existing storm drain from PJ Helicopters currently outlets to the southernmost vernal pool west of the detention basin site. We understand that this outlet will be eliminated as part of the current work, which will serve to improve water quality in the vernal pool and allow it to return to a natural hydrological/biological condition. Full protection of the three pools west of the detention basin site can be achieved by providing a minimum 50-foot setback from the pools and establishing a permanent fence at this location to exclude entry into the pools from the PJ Helicopters site.

The pool/swale system to the east of the detention basin site would be fully avoided by the proposed detention basin. However, as with the pools to the west, a minimum 50- foot setback from the wetlands should be provided and a permanent fence should be established at this location to exclude entry into the pools from the PJ Helicopters site.

The indirect effects of the basin on biological resources would be negligible because: 1) the basin would rarely overflow (it would be sized to handle the 100-year storm), 2) the nearest downstream water is a stream roughly 75 to 300 feet away; intervening vegetation would provide sufficient filtration of any sediments that could be present in runoff from the basin berms or overflow outlet, and 3) the basin would not intercept surface water contributions to the pools/swales to the east and west.

Under current conditions, runoff in the roadside ditch on the south side of Langley Way passes through the north (lower) end of the vernal swale near South Jackson Street before discharging down a rock-lined cut slope and into the drop inlet. Increasing the amount of runoff into this vernal swale could result in adverse biological effects. Therefore, we recommend that the roadside ditch be modified slightly so that runoff remains adjacent to the paved road and does not enter the swale.

Special-Status Species Special-Status Plant Species The records search showed that the following special-status plant species are known to occur within a five-mile radius of the study area: Henderson’s bentgrass, silky cryptantha, dwarf downingia, legenere, Red Bluff dwarf rush, Ahart’s dwarf rush, and Ahart’s paronychia.

Ahart’s paronychia generally occurs in thin, often rocky, soils in association with wetlands; no suitable habitat is present in the study area, so this species would not be present. Red Bluff and/or Ahart’s dwarf rush was observed in the vernal swale south of Langley Way near South Jackson Street. Henderson’s bentgrass was observed in association with most of the wetland features shown of Figure 3. Dwarf downingia, legenere and woolly meadowfoam could also be present in the wetland features, but would not have been detectable at the time of our field observations. Provision of setbacks and fences, as described above, would preclude any impacts to special-status plant species as a result of detention basin construction. Rerouting of the roadside Bret Wood August 24, 2016 Page 4 ditch to avoid the vernal swale near the Langley/South Jackson intersection would ensure that the other two drainage alternatives would not adversely affect special-status plant species.

Special-Status Animal Species The following special-status animal species are known to occur within a 5-mile radius of the study area: bank swallow, burrowing owl, Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, pallid bat, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, western red bat, western yellow-billed cuckoo, white-tailed kite, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler. None of these special-status animal species have been previously reported in the study area. Additional special-status fish species not reported in the CNDDB records search, but known to utilize the Sacramento River and its tributaries, include Central Valley steelhead, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley fall-run Chinook salmon and Central Valley late-fall-run Chinook salmon.

The project site provides potentially suitable habitat for the burrowing owl, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Although a number of the other special- status wildlife species noted above could potentially forage in the area, the site does not provide suitable roosting/nesting/denning habitat, so it is unlikely that these species would be adversely affected by project implementation. Implementation of standard erosion control and spill prevention practices would ensure that effects on downstream aquatic species would be negligible.

Although burrowing owls are occasionally reported in the general Red Bluff vicinity, field evaluation showed that the project site does not support any burrows suitable for the owls. Several vernal pools/swales occur in the immediate vicinity of the project study area, and have a high potential to support vernal pool tadpole shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp. However, provision of setbacks and fences, as described above, would preclude impacts to these species as a result of detention basin construction, while rerouting of the roadside ditch to avoid the vernal swale near the Langley/South Jackson intersection would ensure that the other two drainage alternatives would not adversely affect these species.

Conclusions and Recommendations In summary, we find that the study area supports one asphalt-lined stream corridor, but no wetlands, no unique natural habitats, or special-status plant or wildlife species. However, vernal pool/swale wetlands that are capable of supporting special-status plant and wildlife species are located in close proximity to the study area. These resources can be adequately protected through implementation of the following design measures:

If storm water runoff is to be discharged to a detention basin on the north side of Langley Way, a minimum 50-foot setback from the wetlands to the east and west should be provided, and a permanent fence should be established at the outer edge of the setback to exclude entry into the pools from the PJ Helicopters site. Bret Wood August 24, 2016 Page 5

The fencing should be in place prior to construction of the detention basin to preclude possible inadvertent damage to the wetlands during construction.

If storm water runoff is to be discharged to the roadside ditch on the south side of Langley Way, the ditch should be modified slightly so that runoff remains adjacent to the paved road and does not enter the vernal swale near the intersection of Langley and South Jackson.

Standard erosion control and spill prevention measures should be implemented to ensure that downstream waters are not indirectly affected by project implementation. These measures would include limiting water line installation in the south fork of Grasshopper Creek (if proposed) to periods when the stream is dry.

Please contact me if you have any questions regarding our findings or recommendations.

Sincerely,

Donald Burk Environmental Services Manager encl. Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Wetland/Natural Community Screening Results Tehama County, California

OP89 ● OP36 Mineral OP36 §¨¦5 OP32 ● Red Bluff

● Tehama ●Corning

Project Location

SITE d x m . o i b

6 1 5 2 8 0 _ 1 _ e r u g i F \ p o t k s e D \ k r u b d \ s r e s U \ USGS Quad - Red Bluff East 7.5-minute Quadrangle : C

: h t Sections 31 Township 27 N, Range 3 W a P All depictions are approximate. Not a survey product. 08.25.16 Feet Figure 1 X 0 2,000 Project Location and Vicinity Study Area Boundary Estimated Wetland Boundary Flow Path !( Existing Outfall Location d x m . 6 1 4 2 8 0 s t l u s e R g n i n e e r c S d n a l t e W

2 g i F \ s t n e m u c o D p a M - 3 \ S I G t c e j o r P - 3 \ n o i s n a p x E s r e

t !( p o c i !( l e H

J P

- s m e t s y S g n i d l i u B y e l l a V h t r o N

1 0 - 6 0 6 \ e v i t c A s b o J - 1 0 \ s e l i f y n a p m o c \ : N

: h t a P All depictions are approximate. Not a survey product. 08.24.16 Figure 2 Feet X 0 200 Wetland/Natural Community Screening Results

APPENDIX 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project Tehama County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 31.91 1000sqft 0.73 31,910.00 0

Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 54.00 1000sqft 1.24 54,000.00 0

Parking Lot 36.00 Space 0.32 14,400.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 3.1 Precipitation Freq (Days) 68

Climate Zone 3 Operational Year 2018

Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - Off-road Equipment - Vehicle Trips - No new trips. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Off-road Equipment - Equipment hours/day per project applicant. Off-road Equipment - Equipment hours/day per project applicant. Off-road Equipment - Equipment hours/day per project applicant. Off-road Equipment - Equipment hours/day per project applicant. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 3 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 40 0

tblGrading AcresOfGrading 2.63 3.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 7.00

tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.68 0.00

tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.68 0.00

tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.68 0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2017 0.3322 2.3282 1.7435 3.0200e- 0.0588 0.1356 0.1944 0.0201 0.1293 0.1495 0.0000 264.7314 264.7314 0.0549 0.0000 266.1030 003

2018 0.0553 0.4081 0.3335 5.9000e- 7.6600e- 0.0231 0.0307 2.0800e- 0.0219 0.0240 0.0000 51.5352 51.5352 0.0106 0.0000 51.7997 004 003 003

Maximum 0.3322 2.3282 1.7435 3.0200e- 0.0588 0.1356 0.1944 0.0201 0.1293 0.1495 0.0000 264.7314 264.7314 0.0549 0.0000 266.1030 003

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2017 0.3322 2.3282 1.7435 3.0200e- 0.0588 0.1356 0.1944 0.0201 0.1293 0.1495 0.0000 264.7312 264.7312 0.0549 0.0000 266.1028 003

2018 0.0553 0.4081 0.3335 5.9000e- 7.6600e- 0.0231 0.0307 2.0800e- 0.0219 0.0240 0.0000 51.5352 51.5352 0.0106 0.0000 51.7996 004 003 003

Maximum 0.3322 2.3282 1.7435 3.0200e- 0.0588 0.1356 0.1944 0.0201 0.1293 0.1495 0.0000 264.7312 264.7312 0.0549 0.0000 266.1028 003

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)

1 4-1-2017 6-30-2017 0.8812 0.8812

2 7-1-2017 9-30-2017 0.8962 0.8962

3 10-1-2017 12-31-2017 0.9004 0.9004

4 1-1-2018 3-31-2018 0.4609 0.4609

Highest 0.9004 0.9004

2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 0.1292 1.0000e- 1.1400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1800e- 2.1800e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 2.3300e- 005 003 003 003 005 003

Energy 3.1200e- 0.0284 0.0239 1.7000e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 0.0000 113.7939 113.7939 4.3400e- 1.3400e- 114.3023 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0897 0.0000 6.0897 0.3599 0.0000 15.0871

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8616 11.6157 12.4773 1.1264 5.7900e- 42.3617 003

Total 0.1323 0.0284 0.0250 1.7000e- 0.0000 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 0.0000 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 6.9513 125.4118 132.3631 1.4907 7.1300e- 171.7534 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 0.1292 1.0000e- 1.1400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1800e- 2.1800e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 2.3300e- 005 003 003 003 005 003

Energy 3.1200e- 0.0284 0.0239 1.7000e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 0.0000 113.7939 113.7939 4.3400e- 1.3400e- 114.3023 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 003

Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.0897 0.0000 6.0897 0.3599 0.0000 15.0871

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8616 11.6157 12.4773 1.1264 5.7900e- 42.3617 003

Total 0.1323 0.0284 0.0250 1.7000e- 0.0000 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 0.0000 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 6.9513 125.4118 132.3631 1.4907 7.1300e- 171.7534 004 003 003 003 003 003

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction

3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week

1 Grading Grading 4/1/2017 4/10/2017 5 6

2 Building Construction Building Construction 4/11/2017 2/12/2018 5 220

3 Paving Paving 2/13/2018 2/26/2018 5 10

4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/27/2018 3/12/2018 5 10

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3

Acres of Paving: 1.56

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 4,104 (Architectural Coating – sqft)

OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor

Grading Graders 1 7.00 187 0.41

Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247 0.40

Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37

Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29

Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20

Building Construction Generator Sets 1 7.00 84 0.74

Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37

Building Construction Welders 3 7.00 46 0.45

Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 7.00 9 0.56

Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42

Paving Paving Equipment 1 7.00 132 0.36

Paving Rollers 2 7.00 80 0.38

Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37

Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 7.00 78 0.48

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class

Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Building Construction 8 42.00 16.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Architectural Coating 1 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Clean Paved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 9 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

3.2 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 0.0174 0.0000 0.0174 8.8600e- 0.0000 8.8600e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003

Off-Road 6.3000e- 0.0707 0.0299 6.0000e- 3.5600e- 3.5600e- 3.2700e- 3.2700e- 0.0000 5.2193 5.2193 1.6000e- 0.0000 5.2593 003 005 003 003 003 003 003

Total 6.3000e- 0.0707 0.0299 6.0000e- 0.0174 3.5600e- 0.0210 8.8600e- 3.2700e- 0.0121 0.0000 5.2193 5.2193 1.6000e- 0.0000 5.2593 003 005 003 003 003 003

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.0000e- 1.8000e- 1.6400e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 6.0000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 0.0000 0.2358 0.2358 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.2362 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005

Total 2.0000e- 1.8000e- 1.6400e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 6.0000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 0.0000 0.2358 0.2358 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.2362 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

3.2 Grading - 2017 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 0.0174 0.0000 0.0174 8.8600e- 0.0000 8.8600e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003

Off-Road 6.3000e- 0.0707 0.0299 6.0000e- 3.5600e- 3.5600e- 3.2700e- 3.2700e- 0.0000 5.2193 5.2193 1.6000e- 0.0000 5.2593 003 005 003 003 003 003 003

Total 6.3000e- 0.0707 0.0299 6.0000e- 0.0174 3.5600e- 0.0210 8.8600e- 3.2700e- 0.0121 0.0000 5.2193 5.2193 1.6000e- 0.0000 5.2593 003 005 003 003 003 003

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.0000e- 1.8000e- 1.6400e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 6.0000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 0.0000 0.2358 0.2358 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.2362 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005

Total 2.0000e- 1.8000e- 1.6400e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 0.0000 2.4000e- 6.0000e- 0.0000 6.0000e- 0.0000 0.2358 0.2358 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.2362 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

3.3 Building Construction - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.2872 2.0049 1.4240 2.1600e- 0.1294 0.1294 0.1235 0.1235 0.0000 185.0005 185.0005 0.0420 0.0000 186.0492 003

Total 0.2872 2.0049 1.4240 2.1600e- 0.1294 0.1294 0.1235 0.1235 0.0000 185.0005 185.0005 0.0420 0.0000 186.0492 003

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0118 0.2286 0.0709 4.5000e- 9.9100e- 2.3400e- 0.0123 2.8700e- 2.2400e- 5.1100e- 0.0000 43.0785 43.0785 9.5100e- 0.0000 43.3163 004 003 003 003 003 003 003

Worker 0.0266 0.0238 0.2172 3.5000e- 0.0313 2.9000e- 0.0316 8.3200e- 2.7000e- 8.5900e- 0.0000 31.1973 31.1973 1.7900e- 0.0000 31.2421 004 004 003 004 003 003

Total 0.0384 0.2524 0.2881 8.0000e- 0.0412 2.6300e- 0.0438 0.0112 2.5100e- 0.0137 0.0000 74.2758 74.2758 0.0113 0.0000 74.5584 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

3.3 Building Construction - 2017 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.2872 2.0049 1.4240 2.1600e- 0.1294 0.1294 0.1235 0.1235 0.0000 185.0003 185.0003 0.0420 0.0000 186.0489 003

Total 0.2872 2.0049 1.4240 2.1600e- 0.1294 0.1294 0.1235 0.1235 0.0000 185.0003 185.0003 0.0420 0.0000 186.0489 003

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0118 0.2286 0.0709 4.5000e- 9.9100e- 2.3400e- 0.0123 2.8700e- 2.2400e- 5.1100e- 0.0000 43.0785 43.0785 9.5100e- 0.0000 43.3163 004 003 003 003 003 003 003

Worker 0.0266 0.0238 0.2172 3.5000e- 0.0313 2.9000e- 0.0316 8.3200e- 2.7000e- 8.5900e- 0.0000 31.1973 31.1973 1.7900e- 0.0000 31.2421 004 004 003 004 003 003

Total 0.0384 0.2524 0.2881 8.0000e- 0.0412 2.6300e- 0.0438 0.0112 2.5100e- 0.0137 0.0000 74.2758 74.2758 0.0113 0.0000 74.5584 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

3.3 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.0410 0.2951 0.2252 3.5000e- 0.0181 0.0181 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 30.1000 30.1000 6.6200e- 0.0000 30.2655 004 003

Total 0.0410 0.2951 0.2252 3.5000e- 0.0181 0.0181 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 30.1000 30.1000 6.6200e- 0.0000 30.2655 004 003

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 1.5700e- 0.0350 9.6500e- 7.0000e- 1.6300e- 2.8000e- 1.9100e- 4.7000e- 2.7000e- 7.4000e- 0.0000 7.0517 7.0517 1.3700e- 0.0000 7.0858 003 003 005 003 004 003 004 004 004 003

Worker 3.7300e- 3.3400e- 0.0301 6.0000e- 5.1300e- 4.0000e- 5.1800e- 1.3700e- 4.0000e- 1.4100e- 0.0000 4.9737 4.9737 2.5000e- 0.0000 4.9800 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004

Total 5.3000e- 0.0384 0.0398 1.3000e- 6.7600e- 3.2000e- 7.0900e- 1.8400e- 3.1000e- 2.1500e- 0.0000 12.0254 12.0254 1.6200e- 0.0000 12.0659 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

3.3 Building Construction - 2018 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.0410 0.2951 0.2252 3.5000e- 0.0181 0.0181 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 30.0999 30.0999 6.6200e- 0.0000 30.2655 004 003

Total 0.0410 0.2951 0.2252 3.5000e- 0.0181 0.0181 0.0173 0.0173 0.0000 30.0999 30.0999 6.6200e- 0.0000 30.2655 004 003

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 1.5700e- 0.0350 9.6500e- 7.0000e- 1.6300e- 2.8000e- 1.9100e- 4.7000e- 2.7000e- 7.4000e- 0.0000 7.0517 7.0517 1.3700e- 0.0000 7.0858 003 003 005 003 004 003 004 004 004 003

Worker 3.7300e- 3.3400e- 0.0301 6.0000e- 5.1300e- 4.0000e- 5.1800e- 1.3700e- 4.0000e- 1.4100e- 0.0000 4.9737 4.9737 2.5000e- 0.0000 4.9800 003 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004

Total 5.3000e- 0.0384 0.0398 1.3000e- 6.7600e- 3.2000e- 7.0900e- 1.8400e- 3.1000e- 2.1500e- 0.0000 12.0254 12.0254 1.6200e- 0.0000 12.0659 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

3.4 Paving - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 6.1500e- 0.0624 0.0524 8.0000e- 3.7200e- 3.7200e- 3.4300e- 3.4300e- 0.0000 7.0419 7.0419 2.1500e- 0.0000 7.0956 003 005 003 003 003 003 003

Paving 4.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 004

Total 6.5700e- 0.0624 0.0524 8.0000e- 3.7200e- 3.7200e- 3.4300e- 3.4300e- 0.0000 7.0419 7.0419 2.1500e- 0.0000 7.0956 003 005 003 003 003 003 003

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 4.3000e- 3.8000e- 3.4700e- 1.0000e- 5.9000e- 1.0000e- 6.0000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.5730 0.5730 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.5737 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 005

Total 4.3000e- 3.8000e- 3.4700e- 1.0000e- 5.9000e- 1.0000e- 6.0000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.5730 0.5730 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.5737 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

3.4 Paving - 2018 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 6.1500e- 0.0624 0.0524 8.0000e- 3.7200e- 3.7200e- 3.4300e- 3.4300e- 0.0000 7.0418 7.0418 2.1500e- 0.0000 7.0956 003 005 003 003 003 003 003

Paving 4.2000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 004

Total 6.5700e- 0.0624 0.0524 8.0000e- 3.7200e- 3.7200e- 3.4300e- 3.4300e- 0.0000 7.0418 7.0418 2.1500e- 0.0000 7.0956 003 005 003 003 003 003 003

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 4.3000e- 3.8000e- 3.4700e- 1.0000e- 5.9000e- 1.0000e- 6.0000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.5730 0.5730 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.5737 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 005

Total 4.3000e- 3.8000e- 3.4700e- 1.0000e- 5.9000e- 1.0000e- 6.0000e- 1.6000e- 0.0000 1.6000e- 0.0000 0.5730 0.5730 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.5737 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 004 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 17 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 1.7400e- 0.0117 0.0108 2.0000e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 0.0000 1.4894 1.4894 1.4000e- 0.0000 1.4929 003 005 004 004 004 004 004

Total 1.7400e- 0.0117 0.0108 2.0000e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 0.0000 1.4894 1.4894 1.4000e- 0.0000 1.4929 003 005 004 004 004 004 004

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.3000e- 2.1000e- 1.8500e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 8.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- 0.0000 0.3056 0.3056 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.3060 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005

Total 2.3000e- 2.1000e- 1.8500e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 8.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- 0.0000 0.3056 0.3056 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.3060 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

3.5 Architectural Coating - 2018 Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 1.7400e- 0.0117 0.0108 2.0000e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 0.0000 1.4894 1.4894 1.4000e- 0.0000 1.4929 003 005 004 004 004 004 004

Total 1.7400e- 0.0117 0.0108 2.0000e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 8.8000e- 0.0000 1.4894 1.4894 1.4000e- 0.0000 1.4929 003 005 004 004 004 004 004

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Worker 2.3000e- 2.1000e- 1.8500e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 8.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- 0.0000 0.3056 0.3056 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.3060 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005

Total 2.3000e- 2.1000e- 1.8500e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 0.0000 3.2000e- 8.0000e- 0.0000 9.0000e- 0.0000 0.3056 0.3056 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.3060 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No 9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 0.00 41.00 92 5 3 Rail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

4.4 Fleet Mix

Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No 0.502796 0.032957 0.161982 0.123835 0.041973 0.008777 0.008517 0.108621 0.001274 0.001436 0.005431 0.000935 0.001467 Rail Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.502796 0.032957 0.161982 0.123835 0.041973 0.008777 0.008517 0.108621 0.001274 0.001436 0.005431 0.000935 0.001467

Parking Lot 0.502796 0.032957 0.161982 0.123835 0.041973 0.008777 0.008517 0.108621 0.001274 0.001436 0.005431 0.000935 0.001467

5.0 Energy Detail

Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 82.8703 82.8703 3.7500e- 7.8000e- 83.1950 Mitigated 003 004

Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 82.8703 82.8703 3.7500e- 7.8000e- 83.1950 Unmitigated 003 004

NaturalGas 3.1200e- 0.0284 0.0239 1.7000e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 0.0000 30.9236 30.9236 5.9000e- 5.7000e- 31.1073 Mitigated 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004

NaturalGas 3.1200e- 0.0284 0.0239 1.7000e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 0.0000 30.9236 30.9236 5.9000e- 5.7000e- 31.1073 Unmitigated 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

Other Non- 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces

Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unrefrigerated 579486 3.1200e- 0.0284 0.0239 1.7000e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 0.0000 30.9236 30.9236 5.9000e- 5.7000e- 31.1073 Warehouse-No 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Rail Total 3.1200e- 0.0284 0.0239 1.7000e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 0.0000 30.9236 30.9236 5.9000e- 5.7000e- 31.1073 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004

Mitigated

NaturalGa ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

Other Non- 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces

Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unrefrigerated 579486 3.1200e- 0.0284 0.0239 1.7000e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 0.0000 30.9236 30.9236 5.9000e- 5.7000e- 31.1073 Warehouse-No 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 Rail Total 3.1200e- 0.0284 0.0239 1.7000e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 2.1600e- 0.0000 30.9236 30.9236 5.9000e- 5.7000e- 31.1073 003 004 003 003 003 003 004 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated

Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

Other Non- 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces

Parking Lot 12672 3.6864 1.7000e- 3.0000e- 3.7009 004 005

Unrefrigerated 272192 79.1839 3.5800e- 7.4000e- 79.4941 Warehouse-No 003 004 Rail Total 82.8703 3.7500e- 7.7000e- 83.1950 003 004

Mitigated

Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

Other Non- 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces

Parking Lot 12672 3.6864 1.7000e- 3.0000e- 3.7009 004 005

Unrefrigerated 272192 79.1839 3.5800e- 7.4000e- 79.4941 Warehouse-No 003 004 Rail Total 82.8703 3.7500e- 7.7000e- 83.1950 003 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 23 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.1292 1.0000e- 1.1400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1800e- 2.1800e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 2.3300e- 005 003 003 003 005 003

Unmitigated 0.1292 1.0000e- 1.1400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1800e- 2.1800e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 2.3300e- 005 003 003 003 005 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 24 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.1291 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 1.1000e- 1.0000e- 1.1400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1800e- 2.1800e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 2.3300e- 004 005 003 003 003 005 003

Total 0.1292 1.0000e- 1.1400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1800e- 2.1800e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 2.3300e- 005 003 003 003 005 003

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.1291 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 1.1000e- 1.0000e- 1.1400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1800e- 2.1800e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 2.3300e- 004 005 003 003 003 005 003

Total 0.1292 1.0000e- 1.1400e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.1800e- 2.1800e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 2.3300e- 005 003 003 003 005 003

7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 25 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual 7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category MT/yr

Mitigated 12.4773 1.1264 5.7900e- 42.3617 003

Unmitigated 12.4773 1.1264 5.7900e- 42.3617 003

7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated

Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use

Land Use Mgal MT/yr

Other Non- 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces

Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unrefrigerated 7.37919 / 12.4773 1.1264 5.7900e- 42.3617 Warehouse-No 0 003 Rail Total 12.4773 1.1264 5.7900e- 42.3617 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 26 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated

Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use

Land Use Mgal MT/yr

Other Non- 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces

Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unrefrigerated 7.37919 / 12.4773 1.1264 5.7900e- 42.3617 Warehouse-No 0 003 Rail Total 12.4773 1.1264 5.7900e- 42.3617 003

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 27 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

Category/Year

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

MT/yr

Mitigated 6.0897 0.3599 0.0000 15.0871

Unmitigated 6.0897 0.3599 0.0000 15.0871

8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated

Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons MT/yr

Other Non- 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces

Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unrefrigerated 30 6.0897 0.3599 0.0000 15.0871 Warehouse-No Rail Total 6.0897 0.3599 0.0000 15.0871 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 28 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

8.2 Waste by Land Use Mitigated

Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons MT/yr

Other Non- 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Asphalt Surfaces

Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unrefrigerated 30 6.0897 0.3599 0.0000 15.0871 Warehouse-No Rail Total 6.0897 0.3599 0.0000 15.0871

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment

Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

Boilers

Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type

User Defined Equipment

Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 29 of 29 Date: 1/20/2017 12:14 PM

PJ Helicopters Expansion Project - Tehama County, Annual

11.0 Vegetation

CITY OF RED BLUFF PJ HELICOPTERS HAN G ER PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Prepared for:

CITY OF RED BLUFF 555 WASHINGTON STREET RED BLUFF, CA 96080

Prepared by:

140 INDEPENDENCE CIRCLE, SUITE C CHICO, CA 95973

APRIL 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Environmental Review Process for the Project ...... 1.0-1

1.2 Intended Uses of the IS/MND ...... 1.0-1

1.3 Organization and Scope of this Document ...... 1.0-2

2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

2.1 List of Commenters ...... 2.0-1

2.2 Comments and Responses...... 2.0-1

3.0 MINOR REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT IS/MND

3.1 Introduction...... 3.0-1

3.2 Minor Changes and Edits to the Draft IS/MND ...... 3.0-1

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project March 2017 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration i TABLE OF CONTENTS

This page is intentionally left blank.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative D eclaration March 2017 ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document, in conjunction with the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) responds to comments made on the proposed City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project. While the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines do not require a final initial study or the preparation of formal responses to comments on draft initial studies/mitigated negative declarations, in order to provide further disclosure of the project's impacts, the City has determined to provide responses to the comments it has received.

1.1 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY

The Public Review Draft IS/MND was released for public and agency review on February 28, 2017, with the 30-day review period ending on March 29, 2017. The City received three comment letters during this review period.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

This document provides a response to comments received on the IS/MND and is included as Section 2.0 of this document.

1.2 INTENDED USES OF THE IS/MND

The IS/MND in its final form will be used by the City of Red Bluff in considering approval of the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, the IS/MND will be used as the primary environmental document in consideration of all subsequent planning and permitting actions associated with the project, to the extent such actions require CEQA compliance and as otherwise permitted under applicable law.

CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS

Prior to taking action on the proposed project, the City will consider the IS/MND, this response to comments document, and any additional comments or testimony. Negative declarations and mitigated declarations are considered and adopted per CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, which reads as follows:

15074. CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. (a) Any advisory body of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision- making body shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration before making its recommendation.

(b) Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision- making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project April 2017 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

(c) When adopting a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, the lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.

(d) When adopting a mitigated negative declaration, the lead agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects.

(e) A lead agency shall not adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan or, if a comprehensive airport land use plan has not been adopted, for a project within two nautical miles of a public airport or public use airport, without first considering whether the project will result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the project area.

(f) When a non-elected official or decision making body of a local lead agency adopts a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, that adoption may be appealed to the agency’s elected decision making body, if one exists. For example, adoption of a negative declaration for a project by a city’s planning commission may be appealed to the city council. A local lead agency may establish procedures governing such appeals.

Upon review and consideration of the IS/MND, the City may take action to adopt, revise, or reject the proposed project. A decision to approve the proposed project would be made in a resolution recommending certification of the IS/MND as part of the consideration of the proposed project. The City of Red Bluff has prepared this IS/MND and has determined that the environmental impacts of the proposed project have been reduced to a less than significant level through mitigation measures adopted as part of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

1.3 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT

This document is organized in the following manner:

SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION

Section 1.0 provides an overview of the environmental review process to date and discusses the CEQA requirements for consideration and adoption of a mitigated negative declaration.

SECTION 2.0 – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

Section 2.0 provides a list of commenters, copies of written comments (coded for reference), and the responses to those comments made on the Public Review Draft IS/MND.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative D eclaration April 2017 1.0-2 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

2.1 LIST OF COMMENTERS

The following individuals and representatives of organizations and agencies submitted written comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND.

Letter Agency, Organization, or Individual Date

Michael R. Harris, Environmental Scientist, California Department of Fish A March 29, 2017 and Wildlife B Scott A. Zaitz, Central valley Regional Water Quality Control Board March 30, 2017

C Scott Morgan, Director, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research March 30, 2017

2.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS

Written comments on the Public Review Draft IS/MND are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses to those comments. CEQA does not require lead agencies to provide formal responses to comments received on initial studies supporting proposed mitigated negative declarations; however, the City prepared this response to comments document to provide responses to comments received on the Public Review Draft Public Review Draft IS/MND in order to provide comprehensive information and disclosure for both the public and City’s decision-makers.

Where changes deemed necessary to clarify the Public Review Draft Public Review Draft IS/MND text result from responding to comments, those minor changes are included in the response and demarcated with revision marks (underline for new text, strikeout for deleted text).

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project April 2017 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0-1 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative D eclaration April 2017 2.0-2 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project April 2017 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0-3 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

Comment Letter A – Michael R. Harris, Interior Conservation program Supervisor – California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Response A-1: Comment noted. The commenter does not comment on the adequacy of the Draft EIR analysis.

Response A-2: As requested by the commenter, mitigation measure MM 4.4.1 has been revised to include a 250 foot setback for the stormwater detention basin from the wetlands. However, this mitigation measure has also been revised to remove the permanent fencing requirement as a perimeter fence 250 feet from the any wetlands. To assure protection of the wetlands during construction, this mitigation measure has also been revised to require a temporary construction fence on the perimeter of the setback area. See Section 3.0 Minor Revisions to the Public Review Draft IS/MND for these changes.

Response A-3: Comment noted. The commenter does not comment on the adequacy of the Public Review Draft IS/MND analysis.

Response A-4: Comment noted. The commenter does not comment on the adequacy of the Public Review Draft IS/MND analysis.

Response A-5: Comment noted. The commenter does not comment on the adequacy of the Public Review Draft IS/MND analysis.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative D eclaration April 2017 2.0-4 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project April 2017 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0-5 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative D eclaration April 2017 2.0-6 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project April 2017 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0-7 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

Comment Letter B – Scott Zaitz, Environmental Scientist, Central Valley Water Quality Control Board

Response B-1: Comment noted. The commenter does not comment on the adequacy of the Public Review Draft IS/MND analysis.

Response B-2: Comment noted. The commenter does not comment on the adequacy of the Public Review Draft IS/MND analysis.

Response B-3 The project site was evaluated for the presence of jurisdictional waters in the biological/wetland screening report completed by ENPLAN. This report was included in the Public Review Draft IS/MND in Appendix 4.4. Information from this report was used in the Public Review Draft IS/MND to determine the potential for impacts to jurisdictional waters. As discussed on page 4.0- 14 of the Public Review Draft Public Review Draft IS/MND:

“Only one feature potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was observed in the study area boundary. This consists of the south fork of Grasshopper Creek, which flows under S. Jackson Street near the northern terminus of the study area. Several vernal pools/swales were observed on adjoining lands. Three vernal pools were observed on the north side of Langley Way. In addition, several pools/swales were observed in the southwestern quadrant of the Langley Way/S. Jackson intersection, roughly 600 feet east of the proposed hangar site.”

Again as discussed on page 4.0-15:

“… only one feature potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE was observed in the study area boundary— the south fork of Grasshopper Creek, which flows under S. Jackson Street near the northern terminus of the study area. A large box culvert conveys the stream flow under the street. The stream bottom is covered by an asphalt pad that extends approximately 30 feet upstream of the box culvert. The proposed water line may be attached to the box culvert or may be installed in a trench excavated within the asphalt pad. In either case, no significant biological/wetland impacts would occur, provided that work occurs in the dry season. No other wetlands or other jurisdictional waters of the United States are located on the project site. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4.3 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.”

Mitigation measure MM 4.4.3 requires that any work for the installation of water services adjacent to Grasshopper Creek shall occur in the dry season therefore preventing any potential impacts to Grasshopper Creek.

Response B-4: Comment noted. The commenter does not comment on the adequacy of the Public Review Draft IS/MND analysis. However, as a point of clarification, the proposed project was evaluated for its pot ential to impact wetlands. As discussed on page 4.0-15:

“Several vernal pools/swales occur in the immediate vicinity of the project study area and have a high potential to support vernal pool PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative D eclaration April 2017 2.0-8 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

tadpole shrimp and vernal pool fairy shrimp. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4.1 and MM 4.4.2 would prevent impacts to these species as a result of retention basin construction.”

Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4.1 and MM 4.4.2 would reduce potential impacts to wetlands to a less than significant level.

Response B-5: Comment noted. The commenter does not comment on the adequacy of the Public Review Draft IS/MND analysis.

Response B-6: Comment noted. The commenter does not comment on the adequacy of the Public Review Draft IS/MND analysis.

Response B-7: Comment noted. The commenter does not comment on the adequacy of the Public Review Draft IS/MND analysis.

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project April 2017 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0-9 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative D eclaration April 2017 2.0-10 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project April 2017 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0-11 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative D eclaration April 2017 2.0-12 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project April 2017 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0-13 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

Comment Letter C – Scott Morgan, Director, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

Response C-1: The comment letter confirms the City has complied with the State Clearinghouse public review requirements pursuant to CEQA. The letter includes one submitted comment letter from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. This comment letter is the same letter as Letter A of this Final IS/MND. Please refer to the Letter A discussion above for responses to comments provided in this letter.

PJ Helicopters Hanger Project City of Red Bluff Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative D eclaration April 2017 2.0-14 3.0 MINOR REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT IS/MND

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This section includes minor edits to the Draft IS/MND. These modifications resulted in response to comments received during the Draft IS/MND public review period as well as staff-initiated changes.

Revisions herein do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute significant new information, and do not alter the conclusions of the environmental analysis. Changes are provided in revision marks (underline for new text and strikeout for deleted text).

3.2 MINOR CHANGES AND EDITS TO THE DRAFT IS/MND

SECTION 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Page 4.0-16, mitigation measure MM 4.4.1 has been revised as follows:

MM 4.4.1 For the stormwater retention basin, a minimum 250-foot setback from the wetlands to the east and west shall be provided. A permanent fence shall be established at the outer edge of the setback to exclude entry into the pools from the PJ Helicopters site. The Temporary construction fencing on the perimeter of the setback area shall be in place prior to construction of the retention basin to prevent possible inadvertent damage to the wetlands during construction. This fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to any site grading and throughout construction

Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Red Bluff Planning Department

City of Red Bluff PJ Helicopters Hanger Project April 2017 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0-1 3.0 MINOR REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

This page is intentionally left blank.

Pilot/Flying J Travel Center and Annexation Area Project City of Orland Final Environmental Impact Report June 2015 3.0-2