New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project

Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration • September 2015

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project

Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration • September 2015

Lead Agency:

SMUD–Environmental Management 6201 S Street, MS B203 Sacramento, CA 95817-1899 or P.O. Box 15830 MS B203 Sacramento, CA 95852-1830 Attn: Jose Bodipo-Memba (916) 732-6493 or [email protected]

Prepared by:

AECOM 2020 L Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95811 Contact: Petra Unger [email protected]

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Introduction

This draft initial study (IS) and mitigated negative declaration (MND) have been prepared to evaluate Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s (SMUD’s) New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flows Release Valve (proposed project) for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SMUD is the lead agency responsible for complying with CEQA.

In addition to this Initial Study, the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project were addressed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). On April 29, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) published a NEPA EA evaluating the environmental effects of the proposed project. The following CEQA evaluation incorporates FERC’s environmental analysis and provides additional information specific to the CEQA checklist questions. This Initial Study also incorporates information provided by FERC/U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in the 2008 Upper American River Project (UARP) 2008 EIS and SMUD’s 2008 CEQA Supplemental Analysis for the UARP.

Project Description

SMUD proposes to construct and operate the proposed project as part of the existing Upper American River Project (UARP) hydroelectric facilities in El Dorado County, California. The boating flow release structure would ensure compliance with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license conditions related to minimum and boating releases. The proposed project would require site preparation, construction of a connection to White Rock Tunnel, a new powerhouse, an electrical connection, and a boating flow release valve on the southern banks of the South Fork American River (SFAR). During operations, boating flows would be released from the new valve, rather than from spilling water over Slab Creek Dam. The proposed project also would include reconfiguring the mouth of Iowa Canyon Creek and completing habitat improvements along the SFAR (i.e., moving boulders in the riverbed to create a low flow channel in a ¼ mile stretch of SFAR immediately downstream from Slab Creek Dam and placing gravel into SFAR to enhance habitat for fish). A detailed description of the proposed project is in Chapter 2, “Project Description.”

Findings

As the CEQA lead agency, SMUD finds that the proposed project would be implemented without causing a significant adverse impact on the environment. Mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

CEQA requires that SMUD assess whether its proposed project’s incremental effects would be significant when viewed in connection with the effects of other projects. Based on the analysis presented in the IS/MND, the proposed project would not contribute incrementally to considerable environmental changes when considered in combination with other projects in the area. Therefore, the potential cumulative environmental effects of the proposed project were

Page 1 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 determined to be less than cumulatively considerable. All identified potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant.

The project would be a component of the UARP, which currently consists of seven hydroelectric power generation developments. The cumulative effects evaluation considers (1) whether this project, combined with the continued operation of the existing UARP facilities and the Iowa Hill Pumped Storage Development, which has been authorized by FERC as an addition to the UARP and which SMUD is considering whether to build, collectively may result in a significant impact, and (2) if that cumulative impact were significant, whether the proposed project’s incremental contribution to that effect would be cumulatively considerable. The 2008 CEQA Supplemental Analysis completed by SMUD for the UARP relicensing addressed the environmental impacts of the UARP considered together with the Iowa Hill Development and the Chili Bar Project immediately downstream. All environmental impacts but three were determined to be less than significant with implementation of adopted mitigation measures and FERC license requirements. The three potentially significant impacts were from the loss of 141 acres of upland habitat of special-status wildlife species, impacts on cultural resources from ground- disturbing activities, and blasting-related noise from construction of the Iowa Hill Development tunnel system. Because there are no other existing or planned projects in the vicinity and because the proposed project does not include substantial removal of habitat, or blasting or noise impacts beyond typical construction levels, these impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. There are no known cultural resources within the project footprint or in the project area and therefore the proposed project’s potential impacts on cultural resources would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Growth-Inducing Impacts

The proposed project would include power generation. However, the new generation combined with the generation from the existing UARP would be less than the historical level of power generated from the UARP; therefore there would be no net increase in generation from the UARP compared with operations prior to SMUD receiving the new FERC license in July 2014 and thus there would be no potential to foster economic or population growth. Moreover, power generated by the new powerhouse would be fed into the existing power grid; this small amount of new power (2.68 megawatts) would be distributed regionally consistent with SMUD’s established strategic direction which includes meeting customers’ electrical energy needs, increasing energy efficiency, reducing global warming, and lowering costs. The small amount of power that would be generated by the new powerhouse would not foster economic or population growth in the surrounding area and would not remove an obstacle to growth, considering the overall power generation to be provided by the UARP.

In addition to complying with the FERC license condition requiring boating flow releases, the proposed project would increase SMUD’s power generation from renewable sources and would contribute to SMUD’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supplying 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020. These goals are consistent with California’s Renewable Energy Resources Act of 2011.

Page 2 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Determination

On the basis of this evaluation, SMUD concludes:

• The proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

• The proposed project would not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.

• The proposed project would not have impacts that would be individually limited but cumulatively considerable.

• The proposed project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

• No substantial evidence exists to demonstrate that the proposed project would have a substantive negative effect on the environment.

The IS/MND has been prepared to provide an opportunity for interested agencies and the public to provide comment. Pending public review and the SMUD Board of Directors approval, this MND will be filed pursuant to Section 15075 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Written comments should be submitted to SMUD at the address previously identified by 5:00 p.m. on August 10, 2015.

7/9/15 Signature Date Jose Bodipo-Memba Environmental Management Supervisor

Page 3 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND OTHER ABBREVIATIONS ...... 6 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 11 1.1 Project Overview ...... 11 1.2 Purpose of this Document ...... 11 1.3 Public Review Process ...... 13 1.4 SMUD Board Approval Process ...... 13 1.5 Organization of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ...... 13 1.6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...... 14 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 17 2.1 Introduction ...... 17 2.2 Project Location ...... 17 2.3 Existing Conditions ...... 17 2.4 Project Objectives ...... 21 2.5 Project Components ...... 22 2.6 Permits and Approvals ...... 34 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ...... 37 3.1 Aesthetics ...... 38 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...... 41 3.3 Air Quality ...... 44 3.4 Biological Resources ...... 51 3.5 Cultural Resources ...... 61 3.6 Geology and Soils ...... 69 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy ...... 74 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 79 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 89 3.10 Land Use and Planning ...... 100 3.11 Mineral Resources ...... 102 3.12 Noise ...... 104 3.13 Population and Housing ...... 121 3.14 Public Services ...... 122 3.15 Recreation ...... 126 3.16 Transportation and Circulation ...... 129 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 135 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 139 4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 141 4.1 Sacramento Municipal Utility District—Lead Agency ...... 141 4.2 Environmental Consultants ...... 141 5.0 REFERENCES ...... 143

Page 4 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Appendices Appendix A – Notice of Intent Appendix B – Air Emissions Calculations Appendix C – Noise Information and Terms Appendix D – Noise Modeling Data

Exhibits Figure 2-1. Regional Location ...... 18 Figure 2-2. Project Site and Vicinity ...... 19 Figure 2-3. Powerhouse Construction Area ...... 23 Figure 2-4. Iowa Canyon Creek Concept Restoration ...... 27

Tables Table 2-1. Proposed Construction Schedule for the New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project ...... 33 Table 3.3-1. Summary of Construction Emissions for the New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project ...... 48 Table 3.6-1. NRCS Soils Survey ...... 70 Table 3.7-1. Proposed Project Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 77 Table 3.12-1. Existing Traffic Volumes, and Traffic Noise (dB) ...... 106 Table 3.12-2. Summary of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Recommended Noise Level Standards ...... 106 Table 3.12-3. Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment ...... 107 Table 3.12-4. Construction Vibration Damage Criteria ...... 108 Table 3.12-5. OSM Blasting Vibration Limits for Building Damage1 ...... 108 Table 3.12-6. California Department of Transportation Guidelines on Potential Criteria for Vibration Annoyance ...... 109 Table 3.12-7. Human Response to Blasting Ground Vibration and Air Overpressure ...... 109 Table 3.12-8. Noise Level Performance Protection Standards for Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Affected by Non-transportation Sources ...... 110 Table 3.12-9. Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Transportation Noise Sources ...... 111 Table 3.12-10. Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Non-transportation Noise Sources in Rural Areas—Construction Noise ...... 112 Table 3.12-11. Construction Equipment, and Calculated Noise Levels, dB ...... 113 Table 3.12-12. Traffic Noise—Existing + Construction Condition ...... 115 Table 3.12-13. Project-Related Blasting (Worst-Case) Vibration Levels, VdB (PPV) ...... 117

Page 5 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

ACRONYMS AND OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

AB Assembly Bill ARA aggregate resource area ARB California Air Resources Board ATCM Air Toxics Control Measure B.P. Before Present basin plan water quality control plan BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practice ca. circa CAA Clean Air Act CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCAA California Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CDC California Department of Conservation CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CIWMA California Integrated Waste Management Act CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent Cortese List Public Resources Code Section 65962.5 CRHR California Register of Historical Resources

Page 6 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel(s) dBA A-weighted decibel(s) DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control EA Environmental Assessment EDCAQMD El Dorado County Air Quality Management District EDCFD El Dorado County Fire Protection District ENF Eldorado National Forest EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FDP Fugitive Dust Plan FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FLP Forest Legacy Program FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FTA Federal Transit Administration FYLF Foothill yellow-legged frog GHG greenhouse gas GWh Gigawatt-hour(s) GWh gigawatt-hour(s) in/sec inches per second IS initial study kV kilovolt(s) kW kilowatt(s)

Ldn day-night average level

Leq energy-equivalent noise level

Lmax maximum sound level LOS level of service MCAB Mountain Counties Air Basin MND mitigated negative declaration MRZ Mineral Resource Zone MT metric ton(s) MW megawatt(s) NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission ND negative declaration NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOA naturally occurring asbestos

Page 7 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

NOI notice of intent

NOX oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places OHWM ordinary high water mark OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSM Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement PAL project activity level PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PM particulate matter

PM10 particulate matter equal to or less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter Porter-Cologne Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Act PPT Pacific pond turtle PPV peak particle velocity PRC California Public Resources Code RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 RMP River Management Plan RMS root-mean-square ROG reactive organic gases ROW right-of-way RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAA Streambed Alteration Agreement SB Senate Bill Scoping Plan Climate Change Scoping Plan SCS Soil Conservation Service SFAR South Fork American River SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIP State Implementation Plan SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District SRA State Responsibility Area SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

Page 8 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

TAC toxic air contaminant TMDL total maximum daily load UARP Upper American River Project US 50 U.S. Route 50 USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC U.S. Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tank VdB vibration decibel(s) WDR waste discharge requirement Williamson Act California Land Conservation Act WQC Water Quality Certificate

Page 9 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 10 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Overview

The proposed project is Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s (SMUD) construction and operation of the New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve as part of the existing Upper American River Project (UARP) hydroelectric facilities in El Dorado County, California. The proposed project also would involve reconfiguration of the mouth of Iowa Canyon Creek and habitat improvements along the South Fork American River (SFAR), including moving boulders within the riverbed to create a low flow channel in the 0.25-mile stretch immediately below Slab Creek Dam and placing gravel to enhance habitat for fish.

1.2 Purpose of this Document

SMUD is the licensee and current owner and operator of the UARP under a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (Project No. P-2101). The initial license for the UARP became effective on August 28, 1957. More recently, SMUD completed a relicensing process with FERC, and in January 2007, the Relicensing Settlement Agreement for the UARP and Chili Bar Hydroelectric Project (Settlement Agreement) was filed with FERC. The new UARP license incorporates the 2007 U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) Final Terms and Conditions associated with the Settlement Agreement. These terms and conditions require SMUD to make annual and seasonally varying minimum releases at Slab Creek Dam that range from 63 to 415 cubic feet per second (cfs), and whitewater boating flows of up to 1,500 cfs.

With this requirement for minimum and boating flow releases, SMUD is proposing to construct the facilities needed to comply with the increased flow requirements and submitted an application to FERC for a noncapacity1 license amendment that would permit SMUD to construct and operate a new powerhouse on SMUD-owned land 0.25 mile downstream from Slab Creek Dam. The new powerhouse would contain a turbine that would generate power from the required minimum releases. In addition to the pBowerhouse, SMUD would construct a boating flow valve, valve vault, and energy-dissipating structure that would release the boating flow water safely. FERC has adopted the environmental evaluation in SMUD’s license application (Appendix E of the license application) along with a Supplemental Biological Analysis submitted to FERC to satisfy FERC’s obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

This purpose of this initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve and to disclose potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The IS/MND assesses the environmental effects of the proposed project as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), in

1 The project would qualify as a noncapacity FERC license amendment because the project would result in an increase in the UARP’s maximum hydraulic capacity of less than 15 percent (18 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 4.201[b]). However, because SMUD is adding a new turbine, FERC regulations required SMUD to follow FERC’s three stage consultation process (18 CFR 4.38(iv)(C).

Page 11 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.). CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines require that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those projects.

As the CEQA lead agency for the proposed project, SMUD has prepared this IS/MND to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment. In accordance with Sections 15063 and 15074 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an environmental impact report must be prepared if there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the proposed project under review may have a potentially significant impact on the environment. A negative declaration (ND) or MND is a written statement prepared by the lead agency describing the reasons why the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment, and therefore, would not require preparation of an environmental impact report (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an ND or MND for a project subject to CEQA should be prepared when either:

• the IS shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant impact on the environment; or

• the IS identifies potentially significant impacts, but:

. revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant (in this case, SMUD) before the proposed MND and IS are released for public review would avoid the impacts or mitigate the impacts to a point where clearly no significant impacts would occur; and

. there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project as revised may have a significant impact on the environment.

As stated below, SMUD has analyzed the potential environmental impacts created by the proposed project, determined that proposed project impacts are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures, and has prepared this MND.

This IS addresses all questions in the CEQA Initial Study checklist (Appendix G); wherever applicable, it refers to the environmental information and impact assessment presented in FERC’s NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) (FERC 2015) and SMUD’s FERC license amendment application (SMUD 2014), which was adopted by FERC as the EA. This IS also refers to and incorporates by reference portions of the 2008 FERC/USFS environmental impact statement for UARP relicensing (FERC and USFS 2008) and SMUD’s 2008 CEQA supplemental analysis (SMUD 2008) and CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for UARP relicensing.

SMUD is the lead agency for this CEQA document. The State Water Resources Control Board will also make discretionary decisions related to the UARP license amendment in the form of a Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification. Further, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and State

Page 12 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Historic Preservation Officer will make discretionary decisions related to the project; all four are responsible agencies under CEQA.

1.3 Public Review Process

This draft IS/MND is being circulated for a 30-day public review period to all individuals who have requested a copy, local libraries, and appropriate agencies. A notice of intent (NOI) is also being distributed to all property owners on record identified by the El Dorado County Assessor’s office as having property within 500 feet of the project boundaries. The NOI identifies where the document is available for public review and invites interested parties to provide written comments for incorporation into the final IS/MND. A copy of the NOI is included as Appendix A of this document.

A final IS/MND that includes written responses to comments received on significant environmental issues will be prepared. Before SMUD’s Board of Directors makes a decision on the proposed project, the final IS/MND will be provided to all parties commenting on the IS/MND.

1.4 SMUD Board Approval Process

The SMUD Board must adopt the IS/MND and approve the mitigation monitoring plan before it can approve the proposed project. The project and pertinent environmental documentation will be formally presented at a SMUD Board meeting for information and discussion. The SMUD Board will then consider adopting the final IS/MND at its next regular meeting. Meetings of the SMUD Board are held at SMUD’s headquarters (6201 S Street, Sacramento, CA 95817-1899) and are open to the public. The public may comment at both meetings.

Once the IS/MND has been adopted, the SMUD Board will likely render a decision on project approval on the same date, consistent with past practice.

1.5 Organization of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

This IS/MND is organized into the following chapters:

Chapter 1, “Introduction,” provides summary information about the proposed project, describes the public review process for the IS/MND, and includes the CEQA determination for the proposed project.

Chapter 2, “Project Description,” contains a detailed description of the proposed project.

Chapter 3, “Environmental Checklist,” provides an assessment of proposed project impacts by resource topic. The Environmental Checklist form from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines is used to make one of the following conclusions for impacts from the proposed project:

• No impact—the proposed project would have no impact on the resource area under evaluation.

Page 13 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

• Less-than-significant impact—the proposed project’s adverse impacts on a resource area would not exceed established thresholds of significance.

• Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated—proposed mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project’s adverse impacts to below established thresholds of significance.

Mitigation measures are noted after each impact discussion as appropriate.

Chapter 4, “List of Preparers,” identifies the individuals who contributed to the IS/MND.

Chapter 5, “References,” identifies the information sources used in preparing this document.

Appendices contain technical reports and other information to supplement the IS/MND.

1.6 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

Impacts on the environmental factors below are evaluated using the checklist included in Chapter 3. SMUD determined that the environmental factors checked below would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. It was determined that the unchecked factors would have a less-than-significant impact or no impact.

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

DETERMINATION: 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 proposed mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project’s adverse impacts to below established thresholds of significance. 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.

Page 14 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

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.

7/10/15 Signature Date

Jose Bodipo-Memba Sacramento Municipal Utility District Printed Name Lead Agency

Page 15 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 16 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Introduction

The proposed project would involve constructing and operating a new powerhouse and boating flow release valve downstream from Slab Creek Dam in El Dorado County. The project also would involve reconfiguration of the mouth of Iowa Canyon Creek to restore it to a more natural state and completing habitat improvements along the South Fork American River (SFAR) just downstream from the dam, including moving boulders to create a low flow channel and placing gravel to improve habitat for salmonids. This section describes the project location, existing conditions and facilities, the project components, and details on their construction and operation. It also lists the standard environmental protection measures that would be implemented by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) to minimize the project’s environmental effects, and the required permits.

2.2 Project Location

The New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve would be located adjacent to the SFAR in El Dorado County, California, approximately 50 miles east of Sacramento and 3 miles north of the town of Camino. The project would be a part of SMUD’s hydroelectric power generation facilities that comprise the UARP. The UARP consists of seven hydroelectric power generation developments that use a series of reservoirs, tunnels, and powerhouses in the Rubicon River, Silver Creek, and SFAR watersheds. The seven existing UARP hydroelectric developments stretch from Loon Lake near Lake Tahoe to the Slab Creek/White Rock Development. The new powerhouse would be part of the Slab Creek/White Rock Development, which consists of Slab Creek Dam and Reservoir, Slab Creek Powerhouse (at the base of the dam), White Rock Tunnel and Penstock, and White Rock Powerhouse at the upper end of Chili Bar Reservoir. Slab Creek Dam is located on land owned by the USFS’s Eldorado National Forest.

Figure 2-1 shows the regional location of the proposed project and Figure 2-2 shows the location of the project site in relation to Slab Creek Dam. The proposed project would expand the power-generating capacity of the Slab Creek/White Rock Development by adding a new, larger powerhouse to generate more power with water released to meet the new, higher minimum flows. The proposed project also would provide facilities to release higher flows for whitewater rafting, as required by the new Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license. In addition to the water released at Slab Creek Dam, SMUD would obtain the water required to achieve these flows from the existing White Rock Tunnel via a tunnel adit (Adit #3) located 0.25 mile downstream from the dam.

2.3 Existing Conditions

Slab Creek Dam is an 817-foot-long, 250-foot-high arch dam spanning the SFAR. The dam creates Slab Creek Reservoir, which has a capacity of 16,600 acre-feet and an area of 280 acres at its normal maximum water surface elevation of 1,850 feet. The White Rock Intake is submerged within the reservoir and is connected to the 4.9-mile-long, 20- to 24-foot diameter White Rock Tunnel, which carries water to the White Rock Penstock and White Rock

Page 17 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Source: AECOM 2015 Figure 2-1. Regional Location

Page 18 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Source: AECOM 2015 Figure 2-2. Project Site and Vicinity

Page 19 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Powerhouse. The tunnel has three adits; Adit #3 is approximately 0.25 mile downstream from the intake (Figure 2-2) and would connect the tunnel to the proposed New Slab Creek Powerhouse and boating valve.

The dam is equipped with a penstock, valve, and powerhouse. The valve can release up to approximately 270 cfs (at full pool) and was designed for draining the reservoir in an emergency. The penstock bifurcates just downstream from the dam into the powerhouse, which is a concrete structure attached to the downstream face of the dam. The 450-kilowatt (kW) turbine was installed in 1983 to generate power from the minimum-release stream flows of 36 cfs required by FERC in 1981. Water exits through the tailrace below the powerhouse floor and into the plunge pool just downstream from the dam. Generated power is transmitted to a switchyard at the top of the White Rock Tunnel Gate House, connecting the powerhouse transmission line to a 12-kilovolt (kV) distribution line owned and operated by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).

The minimum releases required by the existing FERC license to protect aquatic resources range from 63 to 415 cfs (FERC 2014). Boating flow releases of 1,500 cfs are currently released by spilling water over the dam.

2.4 Project Objectives

The proposed project would supplement the existing Slab Creek Powerhouse of the UARP with a new powerhouse. The new powerhouse and boating flow release valve would allow SMUD to comply with minimum- and boating-release requirements of the new UARP license while increasing overall renewable energy production. With a capacity of 2.68 megawatts (MW), the new powerhouse would be larger than the existing 0.45-MW powerhouse located at the base of Slab Creek Dam. The new powerhouse would generate an average annual energy production of approximately 10.3 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of hydroelectric power and would contribute to achieving SMUD’s Renewable Portfolio Standards goals. This project would meet SMUD’s Strategic Directives 4 (Reliability) and 7 (Environmental Leadership).

The proposed project also would ensure compliance with FERC license conditions related to minimum and boating releases (see Section 2.5.7, Project Operations). SMUD’s new FERC license requires compliance with a variable minimum release and whitewater boating flow schedule for the SFAR below Slab Creek Reservoir. At present, SMUD’s release valve at Slab Creek Dam is incapable of releasing flows higher than approximately 270 cfs. In recognition of this limitation, the new license allows SMUD to make facility improvements to release up to 415 cfs (the highest required minimum release) by Year 4 of the new license. SMUD must also release recreational boating flows of up to 1,500 cfs by year 1 of the new license. Currently, SMUD’s only means of achieving these flow levels would be to spill water over the dam. This Project would allow for the use of combined flows from the new powerhouse and the existing powerhouse to meet FERC license required minimum flows at a point 0.25-mile downstream of the dam. In addition the Boating flow valve would allow for SMUD to meet the boating flow requirements in the FERC license by releasing from existing powerhouse and a new boating flow valve. Flows from the proposed project’s boating flow release valve would be more accurate and safer for boaters. SMUD is planning to construct the proposed project over the next 4 years, which would accelerate the schedule for providing flows for whitewater rafting and would expand SMUD’s hydroelectric power portfolio.

Page 21 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

2.5 Project Components 2.5.1 Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve

The proposed project would involve construction of a new powerhouse and boating flow release valve on the south bank of the SFAR approximately 0.25 mile downstream from Slab Creek Dam and directly adjacent to the portal to Adit #3 of the White Rock Tunnel (Figure 2-2). The existing dam and new powerhouse/boating release valve would both contribute to meeting the required minimum and boating releases. Water would be delivered to the new powerhouse through a single penstock installed within Adit #3 from the White Rock Tunnel. The existing adit is a 24-foot-diameter, 400-foot-long, horseshoe-shaped tunnel between the White Rock Tunnel and the south bank of the SFAR. The following paragraphs describe the project’s components, proceeding generally from upstream to downstream; Figure 2-3 shows the location of the project components.

New Slab Creek Penstock—A new, approximately 500-foot-long, 6.5-foot-diameter steel penstock would be constructed inside Adit #3. This adit would connect the new powerhouse and boating flow release valve to water supplies from the White Rock Tunnel. Within the adit, the penstock would be encased in concrete or supported on concrete saddles. A shutoff valve with provisions for emergency closure would be installed just downstream from the concrete encasement. The penstock would bifurcate just outside the adit portal, with one portion leading to the powerhouse and the other leading to the boating release valve.

New Slab Creek Powerhouse—The new powerhouse would be a reinforced-concrete structure founded on bedrock and capable of withstanding the high tailwater elevation associated with the 100-year frequency flood event. The structure would be approximately 57 feet long by 30 feet wide and would house a single turbine-generator with the capacity to handle a maximum design flow of up to approximately 200 cfs. The turbine-generator, rated at 2,680 kW, would result in a 2.68-MW powerhouse capable of producing approximately 10.3 GWh of energy annually. The powerhouse would have sealed doors and windows to exclude wildlife and protection devices would be installed to prevent wildlife from contacting electrical equipment that may result in electrocution.

Boating Release Valve and Vault—The boating release valve would be contained within a concrete vault directly downstream from and adjacent to the new powerhouse. The structure would be approximately 55 feet long by 20 feet wide. The vault would house a fixed cone valve with hood, energy-dissipating baffles, and an outlet structure that would release boating flows, direct them downstream, and dissipate the water’s energy to minimize safety impacts on whitewater boaters navigating rapids.

New Slab Creek Powerhouse Circuit Power Line—Electricity generated at the new powerhouse would connect to an existing PG&E 12kV line that serves the existing Slab Creek Gatehouse. SMUD would construct an approximately 13-15 pole, 2,000-foot long, 12kV power line extension. The power line extension would connect to the PG&E 12kV distribution power line.

Compliance Measurement Flow Meter—SMUD would install a flow meter to measure minimum, boating, and ramping-rate releases at the new powerhouse. Flow released by the new powerhouse would be measured in the main penstock and flow released from the dam

Page 22 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Source: AECOM 2015 Figure 2-3. Powerhouse Construction Area

Page 23 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 would be measured at the existing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) compliance gauge (USGS gauge #11443500) located approximately 800 feet upstream from the proposed powerhouse location (see Figure 2-2). Compliance would be determined by adding the flow measurements from the penstock and the USGS gauge.

Boating Access Road, Parking, and Put-in Facilities—During boating-release events, whitewater boaters would access the river to launch rafts and kayaks. Boaters would use the old construction road, drop-off, and turnaround area to access the south bank of the SFAR. Twenty diagonal, paved, and striped parking spaces would be provided along Slab Creek Road (Figure 2-3) approximately 270 feet uphill of its terminus. The put-in area would be located at an existing cobble bar approximately 1,470 feet down the old construction road from the end of Slab Creek Road. The old construction road would be improved to initially accommodate construction vehicles and whitewater boaters during operations. The cobble bar is located at the downstream end of the large pool and at the upstream end of a 200-foot-long, low-gradient rapid that extends downstream to the confluence with Iowa Canyon Creek (Figure 2-3).

2.5.2 Iowa Canyon Creek Reconfiguration

The proposed project includes reconfiguration of the confluence of Iowa Canyon Creek with the SFAR. This activity is described as an environmental measure in SMUD’s FERC license amendment application (SMUD 2014) and was adopted as a preliminary condition by the USFS for project approval. This area was disturbed during construction of the dam and tunnel by placement of debris during construction of Slab Creek Dam. A concrete batch plant used during construction of the dam was located further upstream on Iowa Canyon Creek.

SMUD would restore approximately the lowest 200 feet of Iowa Canyon Creek to a more natural grade and streambed width to allow surface flow and downstream fish passage during summer/fall low flow conditions. During dry years, fish moving downstream may otherwise be stranded in this 200-foot reach where they could become susceptible to predation. The purpose of the Iowa Canyon Creek reconfiguration would be to improve low-flow stream conditions and migration, particularly the downstream passage of rainbow trout. The proposed reconfiguration would not ensure perennial flow; however, it would convey surface flows that reach the upstream end of the reconfiguration reach to the SFAR.

Iowa Canyon Creek’s confluence with the SFAR is constricted by large slabs of concrete and a metal bridge. The flow is split between a surface discharge and a discharge that flows below the surface beneath a large earthen mound and enters the SFAR approximately 50–60 feet downstream from the physical mouth of Iowa Canyon Creek (Figure 2-4). The lowest approximately 50 feet of the creek has a slope of 36 percent and is composed of boulders and large concrete slabs. During low-flow periods, flows in this section of the creek are frequently underground and fish passage is limited.

To restore the area from the confluence to approximately 200 feet upstream, SMUD would remove approximately 2,900 cubic yards of concrete slabs and other debris, boulders, gravel, and soil. The conceptual design for the stream restoration was based on estimated stream flows, flood frequency data, and the depth to bedrock as determined through geotechnical studies. Under the current restoration scenario, the stream channel would intercept bedrock and

Page 25 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 would be sloped to support revegetation. The proposed project also would include a replacement bridge to access the powerhouse.

2.5.3 South Fork American River Habitat Improvement

The proposed project also includes habitat improvements in the SFAR immediately downstream from Slab Creek Dam and the plunge pool. In this segment of the river, the streambed contains two elevated riffles where river flows filter between large boulders or flow beneath the surface. This activity is described as an environmental measure in SMUD’s FERC license amendment application and was adopted as a preliminary condition for project approval by the USFS. Proposed habitat improvements would involve moving large boulders, concrete debris, and construction waste rock generated during dam construction from a 550-foot segment of the river. This would lower the streambed and create a low flow channel through the two riffles to ensure that minimum streamflow releases from the dam would flow as surface water rather than subsurface flow. The rock would be moved from the main channel to an adjacent lateral bar.

The purpose of the habitat enhancement would be to increase the flow connectivity between the pools and improve riffle habitat for aquatic resources at a minimum release flow of 15 cfs and increase fish passage. SMUD’s preliminary design of the channel was based on field observations, a topographic survey, water surface elevations, and hydraulic modeling to evaluate the stability of the bed material. The resulting channel would be 3 feet wide and 1 foot deep, approximately the size of the larger boulders that compose the bed material. The channel would be constructed using a small excavator to remove and relocate boulders. To access the restoration area, the construction contractor would construct an access road, use the existing river path, or the excavator would be flown in from a staging area using a helicopter.

2.5.4 South Fork American River Gravel Augmentation

The river reach between the large pool and new powerhouse contains little spawning gravel. The purpose of the gravel augmentation would be to increase spawning habitat for rainbow trout in this 600-foot segment of the SFAR. SMUD would pile gravel within or on the side of the SFAR near the proposed whitewater boating put-in, where it would be entrained during periods of high spill flow and dispersed by fluvial transport to downstream depositional areas, such as downstream areas protected from high flows by large boulders. SMUD is also evaluating an alternate plan to pile gravel on the south bank of the SFAR and potentially within horseshoe- shaped boulder enclosures to aid in retaining the gravel. The final plan for placing gravel will be based on hydraulic modeling during final design. SMUD would transport gravel to the site and supplement it with gravel excavated from the Iowa Canyon Creek reconfiguration (if sufficient quantities are available). The 200 to 300 cubic yards of gravel would be replaced periodically based on the results of annual gravel distribution monitoring. Figure 2-4 shows one option for gravel placed on both sides of the SFAR downstream from the large pool.

2.5.5 Construction Activities

SMUD would construct the proposed project over approximately 2.5 years. The primary construction activities are described below.

Page 26 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Source: AECOM 2015 Figure 2-4. Iowa Canyon Creek Concept Restoration

Page 27 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Staging Area

Because of space constraints at the project site, SMUD would establish off-site staging to accommodate construction worker parking and delivery and storage of materials and equipment. The staging area would be located at the existing Sierra Pacific lumber mill in the town of Camino. Construction workers would park at the staging area and would be transported to the site in groups via vanpool. Delivery trucks would arrive at the staging area and would then be directed to the project site at specified times between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m.

Construction Site Access

Construction traffic would use streets in the town of Camino, including Carson, Larsen, Barclay, and North Canyon Roads. From North Canyon Road, construction traffic would use Slab Creek Road and a gravel road currently used by SMUD to access the construction site. At the terminus of Slab Creek Dam Road, the construction contractor would use existing paved and dirt roads and the existing steel bridge to access construction areas, including Adit #3, areas adjacent to the river, and Iowa Canyon Creek. Because the proposed project would be located on the south bank of the SFAR, a river crossing bridge would not be required. The existing security gates would be maintained throughout construction.

Construction traffic between the staging area and construction site would be scheduled to minimize overlap with school bus traffic and children walking to and from bus stops. Construction worker arrivals would occur between 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., which is before the school bus pickup times of 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. Construction workers would be transported via vanpool from the construction site to the staging area between 3:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m.

On the construction site, the construction contractor would install a new, pre-engineered, code- compliant bridge across Iowa Canyon Creek to replace the existing railcar bridge that currently spans the creek. Once the creek is reconfigured and the new bridge is built, the new bridge would be used for construction site access. The contractor also would create a small parking area and turnaround at the east end of the new bridge to accommodate SMUD maintenance vehicles and boaters accessing the whitewater boating put-in.

Construction Site Preparation

Site preparation would involve clearing vegetation at the site of the new powerhouse and boating flows release valve, installing a temporary power line, positioning two construction office trailers near Iowa Canyon Creek, and installing stormwater and erosion control best management practices (BMPs) such as silt fences and straw bale barriers.

Penstock

Construction of the penstock would occur within the 400-foot-deep Adit #3. This work would require transporting sections of the penstock to the adit, draining water from the White Rock Tunnel, connecting the penstock to the tunnel, and encasing the penstock in concrete or placing it on concrete saddles.

Page 29 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Cofferdam along the South Fork American River

The powerhouse foundation and tailrace would be constructed on the south bank of the SFAR at an elevation of approximately 1,634 feet. This would be below the elevation of the existing bank and riverbed and construction would require installation of a temporary, water-filled rubber cofferdam or other similar means to dewater the construction area (Figure 2-4). River flows would pass the construction site unimpeded; however, the work is planned to be done at normal low-flow conditions (63 to 70 cfs in August). To expedite construction, SMUD may request that FERC grant a short-term variance from the minimum release requirements.

Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve

Construction of the powerhouse and turbine outlet (tailrace) would require excavation of approximately 1,600 cubic yards of boulders and rock for the building foundation. Rock excavation would require blasting, with one or two daytime blast sets per week over 3 to 4 weeks. Concrete would be poured from the bottom of the tailrace up to the turbine floor. The walls and roof of the powerhouse would consist of concrete. The powerhouse would contain a turbine, generator, shutoff valve, and electrical controls. Figure 2-3 shows the configuration of the powerhouse and boating flow release valve adjacent to the SFAR.

The area around the powerhouse would be filled and graded to form a yard and an access road from the east. Construction of the yard would require 2,500 cubic yards of fill, portions of which would come from the powerhouse foundation excavation and Iowa Canyon Creek reconfiguration. The embankment facing the river would be constructed with retaining walls (reinforced earth or concrete) to minimize the volume of fill adjacent to the river. The yard would be constructed at approximately 25 feet above the existing riverbed elevation to ensure the powerhouse would be accessible during high water (up to the 100-year flood). Excavated materials unsuitable for use in the project area would be hauled to the staging area and ultimately to an off-site disposal area.

The vault for the boating flows release valve would require excavation of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of boulders and rock for the outlet structure foundation just downstream from the powerhouse on the south bank of the SFAR. The housing for the valve hood and baffles would be constructed of reinforced concrete with outlet works that would direct the water downstream and dissipate the water’s energy for a safe boating release to the river. The roof of the vault would be at least one foot above the 100-year flood and would have a grate to allow air flow. Therefore, the valve’s electrical controls and connections would be waterproof.

Construction of the penstock, powerhouse, and valve vault would require approximately 2,500 cubic yards of concrete. To minimize truck travel distance, SMUD would manufacture concrete at the project’s staging area in Camino. The plant would have a controlled perimeter to contain concrete washout. Dry cement and aggregate would be transported to the site.

Electrical Interconnection

SMUD would install a small new substation/step-up transformer and a new overhead power line on weathered steel poles to transmit generated power. The line would require approximately 13- 15 power poles and would connect to the power grid at the existing 12kV distribution circuit at

Page 30 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 the White Rock Tunnel Gatehouse (just south of Slab Creek Dam—see Figure 2-2). The step- up transformer would be located on the powerhouse roof.

Site Restoration

Areas disturbed during construction would be restored and revegetated by applying a native grass and/or forb seed mix combined with seeds of other shallow-rooted woody or perennial vegetation in conformance with USFS guidelines. SMUD would also install post-construction stormwater/erosion control BMPs such as matting and/or hydroseed to facilitate vegetation growth and minimize erosion.

2.5.6 Best Management Practices

The proposed project includes a number of environmental measures, or BMPs, each of which is summarized below.

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (and Spill Prevention and Control)

Pursuant to California stormwater regulations and FERC license requirements, SMUD would file a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with FERC. SMUD would consult with the regulatory agencies on the draft plan and modify the plan based on agency review. The SWPPP would outline measures SMUD would implement to protect water quality and manage hazardous substances during construction, including measures for spill prevention and control. After construction, SMUD would add the operation of the New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve to the SMUD-wide Spill Prevention and Control Plan to avert potential impacts on water quality during subsequent operations.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan

As required in the 2015 FERC EA, SMUD would file an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan with FERC for approval. SMUD would prepare the plan in consultation with the regulatory agencies and modify the plan based on agency review. The plan would outline measures to minimize soil erosion transport of sediment into storm water discharges and effects on downstream water quality.

Raptor Electrocution Protection

During final design, SMUD would develop powerline poles that would protect raptors and other bird species from potential electrocution. The pole designs would comply with current standards for power poles using Avian Protection Plan guidelines (APLIC and USFWS 2005).

Construction Transportation Management Plan

As required in the 2015 FERC EA, SMUD would file a Construction Transportation Management Plan with FERC for approval. The plan would outline measures to minimize the effects of construction traffic in the project area including: (1) using an offsite staging area for workers and delivery trucks; (2) scheduling construction traffic from the staging area to avoid periods of peak traffic, Apple Hill tourism traffic, and school bus pick-up/drop-off timing; (3) complying with

Page 31 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards; (4) improving and reconstruction roads if damaged during construction; and (5) implementing driver awareness training.

Construction Fire Protection Plan

As required in the 2015 FERC EA, SMUD would file a Construction Fire Protection Plan with FERC for approval. The plan would outline measures to minimize the threat of construction activities igniting a fire. The plan would adhere to all Federal, State, and local regulations regarding fuels management, smoking, and use of flammable materials. To ensure consistency with existing regulations, SMUD would submit the construction plan for agency review. The plan would contain the following measures: (1) precautions for operating mechanical equipment on the construction site and while driving to and from the work sites; (2) measures for the storage and handling of explosive and/or flammable materials; (3) procedures for construction site firefighting; (4) fire safety awareness training; (5) emergency procedures including notification and evacuation procedures and routes; (6) prohibition of smoking outside of designated areas; and (7) implementation of an on-site water supply system to stop fires from spreading.

Construction Noise Plan

As required in the 2015 FERC EA, SMUD would file a Construction Noise Plan to FERC for approval. The plan would outline measures to minimize construction noise. The plan would include a number of measures including: (1) limiting the hours and days of noise-generating construction activities; (2) periodic monitoring of noise generated by construction activities; (3) properly maintaining construction equipment to reduce noise; (4) establishing a community response program; (5) requiring all vehicles to undergo regular maintenance, in particular muffler maintenance; (6) limiting speeds on Slab Creek Road to 20 miles per hour or less; (7) limiting equipment/materials transportation to within 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on weekdays; and (8) limiting idling time for vehicles.

El Dorado County Air Quality Management District Fugitive Dust Plan Application and Fugitive Dust Management Practices

As required by El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDCAQMD) for projects outside of naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) areas, SMUD would complete a Fugitive Dust Plan (FDP) Application. The FDP Application outlines the fugitive dust control practices that must be implemented during construction. Pursuant to the EDCAQMD Guide to Air Quality Assessment, SMUD would implement fugitive dust control measures in compliance with Rule 403 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (EDCAQMD 2002), including maintaining soil moisture content at a minimum of 12 percent, soil moisture evaluations, watering as necessary to prevent visible emissions (unless area is inaccessible), and applying water or chemical stabilizer to unpaved roads, and restricting vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour.

2.5.7 Construction Schedule

Table 2-1 shows the current construction schedule for the New Slab Creek Powerhouse and boating flow release valve. Construction would begin in 2016 with restoration of Iowa Canyon

Page 32 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Creek and bridge replacement. Construction would continue through 2017 and 2018 with construction of the penstock and boating flow release valve, followed by construction of the powerhouse, power line, and habitat improvements. This sequence is designed to ensure compliance with the license requirement to achieve the full capability to release minimum flows by license Year 4, as the boating flow release valve would be fully capable of releasing all minimum flows.

Table 2-1. Proposed Construction Schedule for the New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project

2015 2016 2017 2018

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Iowa Canyon Creek Reconfiguration and Bridge Road Improvements and Transmission Line White Rock Tunnel and Adit Connection Penstock and Boating Flow Valve Procurement of Turbine and Generator Powerhouse and Electrical Power Line SFAR Habitat Improvement SFAR Gravel Augmentation

Notes: Q = quarter; SFAR = South Fork American River Source: Data compiled by AECOM in 2015

2.5.8 Project Operation

SMUD would operate the new facilities to comply with the requirements of the new FERC license, which requires minimum flows, boating flows, and river-stage ramping rates. With the new facilities in place, water would be released from four different locations: the valve at the base of Slab Creek Dam, the existing Slab Creek Dam Powerhouse, the new powerhouse, and the boating flow release valve. Minimum releases, including for the 0.25-mile reach downstream of the dam (15-36 cfs) and downstream of the proposed project, would be made primarily from the existing and new powerhouses; however, when needed, SMUD would release additional water from the base of the dam or the new boating flow release valve to ensure that the river flows meet license requirements.

During water releases for boating, SMUD would open the valve at the base of Slab Creek Dam to facilitate boat access and launching between the put-in area (Figure 2-2) and the new powerhouse. The valve at the base of the dam can produce between 200 and 270 cfs, depending on reservoir water level. The balance of the boating-flow target would be released

Page 33 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 through the new powerhouse and adjacent boating flow release valve. During boating flow releases, SMUD would comply with the ramping rate of 1 foot per hour for boating safety.

The new operation would change SMUD’s compliance location for measuring river flows. The existing measurement location is at the existing Slab Creek Dam Powerhouse. Because the proposed project would add downstream water release points, SMUD would measure flow in the penstock leading to the new powerhouse and boating flow release valve. Flows from the dam and penstock would be summed to demonstrate compliance. Flow rates would be used to ensure that the required maximum ramping rate would not be exceeded using a stage- discharge curve. Because the flow meter would be located in the penstock, flows from Iowa Canyon Creek would not be accounted for in compliance reporting.

The proposed project would include a change in the operation of and water use in Slab Creek Reservoir. With the new powerhouse in operation, SMUD would not need to raise the level of Slab Creek Reservoir to create a whitewater boating spill. Water surface elevations of the reservoir during boating releases would revert to normal fluctuations below the 1,850-foot spillway elevation. However, the proposed project would not alter the magnitude, frequency, or duration of uncontrolled spill events passing over Slab Creek Dam in spring when river flows are influenced by heavy rain or snowmelt. Similarly, the volume of water passing through the White Rock Tunnel for power generation at the White Rock Powerhouse would be unaltered.

Project operation would provide more accurately scheduled boating flow releases and more precise flow and ramping rates for safer boating. Recreational boating would be managed by preparing and implementing a recreation management plan for the river reach below Slab Creek Dam in compliance with SMUD’s new FERC license. Moreover, the proposed project would provide safer boating conditions. The past practice of using the dam spillway would result in hazardously high flow levels if the White Rock Powerhouse were to shut down during a boating- flow spill event. The proposed project would use the dam and the boating flow release valve to provide more accurate and stable boating flows.

2.6 Permits and Approvals

Environmental permits and approvals for the proposed project may be required from the following agencies:

• FERC license amendment for construction and operation of the New Slab Creek Powerhouse

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Clean Water Act, Section 404 Nationwide Permit

• United States Fish and Wildlife Agency and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Section 7 consultation (informal)

• California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement

• State Water Resources Control Board, Section 401 Certification

Page 34 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Waste Discharge Requirements/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit

• State Historic Preservation Officer, consultation pursuant to the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

• State Water Resources Control Board, Construction General Permit

In addition, the proposed project may require a locally issued encroachment permit from El Dorado County for construction new parking spaces adjacent to Slab Creek Dam Road.

Page 35 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 36 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, this initial study (IS) will provide the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) with sufficient information to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact report, a mitigated negative declaration (MND), or negative declaration (ND) for a proposed project. SMUD is proposing to prepare an MND. In addition to this Initial Study, the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project were addressed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). On April 29, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) published a NEPA EA evaluating the environmental effects of the proposed project. The following CEQA evaluation incorporates FERC’s environmental analysis and provides additional information and analysis as required to address each CEQA checklist question. The 2015 FERC NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) (and Exhibit E of SMUD’s license amendment application) provided a detailed description of the existing environment and addressed a number of the CEQA resource areas for the proposed project. This IS incorporates the information from the 2015 FERC EA by reference; therefore, certain sections of this document are abbreviated and rely on the EA. This Initial Study also incorporates information provided by FERC/U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in the 2008 Upper American River Project (UARP) 2008 EIS and SMUD’s 2008 CEQA Supplemental Analysis for the UARP.

Several resource areas were not addressed in the 2008 CEQA Supplemental Analysis because SMUD determined that the analysis for these resource areas was complete. These included Air Resources, Biological (Aquatic, Terrestrial, and Threatened and Endangered Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Land Use, Recreational Resources, and Socioeconomics (not addressed in CEQA).

The 2015 FERC EA addresses several of the CEQA resource areas broadly (e.g., Biological Resources), but this Initial Study provides complete responses to each CEQA checklist question, such as potential impacts on wildlife movement and potential conflicts with local ordinances. It also addresses the required by CEQA that were not addressed in the 2015 FERC EA, including air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, and utilities.

Finally, because the 2015 FERC EA does not address potential impacts regarding the reconfiguration of Iowa Canyon Creek, South Fork American River (SFAR) habitat improvements, and gravel augmentation, which are all required by SMUD’s new FERC license, those components of the project are addressed throughout this Initial Study for each CEQA resource area.

Page 37 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-than- Significant Potentially with Less-than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.1 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 which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Environmental Setting

The project area is on the western slope of the central Sierra Nevada Mountains, and consists of a mosaic of woodland chaparral (found in canyon areas up to 4,000 feet) and mixed conifer forest (between 2,000 to 6,500 feet) (USFS 1988). The project area is located within the Sierra Nevada Landscape Province that gives the appearance of a widely extended, deeply-trenched sloping plateau. The typical visual appearance of the general area is predominantly dark blue- green forest terrain, moderately rugged and often dissected by deep valleys and river canyons.

The project area’s visual setting is described in detail in SMUD’s license amendment application (SMUD 2014) and the 2015 FERC EA. The project area is in the canyon of the SFAR. The setting includes natural features (e.g., the river, steep forest-covered hills, riparian vegetation, rocky outcrops and vegetated sloping canyon) and human-made structures (e.g., Slab Creek Dam, powerhouse, a pedestrian bridge, a concrete-surfaced construction road, a railroad flatcar bridge crossing Iowa Canyon Creek, and an adit portal). Common vegetation includes brush fields, interspersed with oaks, gray pine, and ponderosa pine.

As described in the 2015 FERC EA, the canyons below Slab Creek Dam are considered visually sensitive. Visitors include summer recreationalists who take advantage of swimming, fishing, and hiking opportunities below the dam, along the SFAR. Recreational users in the immediate project area have views of the surrounding, steeply sloped canyon, Slab Creek Dam, and a pedestrian bridge. Slab Creek Dam is only visible for approximately 600 feet downstream from the existing roadway, which accesses the river just downstream from the existing pedestrian bridge, where the river then turns north and the dam is not in view.

Page 38 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Regulatory Setting

CEQA establishes the policy to take all action necessary to provide the people of the state “with enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic and historic environmental qualities” (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 210001[b]).

The Eldorado National Forest (ENF) uses the USFS Visual Resource Management System to map forest landscapes by variety class, magnitude of visual quality, public concern for scenic quality, and known sensitively. USFS policy states that hydroelectric development will be made inconspicuous in locations where the forest’s visual quality objective is retention or partial retention of the natural landscape (USFS 1988). The river corridor upstream from the proposed powerhouse site has been classified by the ENF with a Visual Quality Objective of Retention.

The visual and scenic quality objectives and policies of El Dorado County are provided in the County General Plan Land Use Element and are discussed in the 2015 FERC EA.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

The project would not be located in a location designated by the ENF, or listed in the County General Plan, as a scenic vista or an area that should be included in the development of the County’s Scenic Corridor Ordinance. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on a scenic vista. b, c) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; or substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Potential impacts on scenic resources were addressed in the 2015 FERC EA. The proposed project would be located in an area of limited visibility above the steep terrain of the river bottom. The general topography, defined by steep canyons and dense mixed conifer forest, would preclude any views of the new powerhouse or boating flows release valve from residences located above the canyon rim both south and north of the SFAR. Furthermore, no scenic highways or historical buildings would be affected by the proposed project.

The new power line would follow the old construction road from the new powerhouse to the existing White Rock Tunnel Gate House (located just upstream from the south end of Slab Creek Dam) and would be visible to recreationalists on the lake and along the river. The power line also would be visible from one residence located on the northern canyon, at a distance of approximately 1,000 vertical feet. SMUD would minimize potential visual impacts by implementing project-specific design features and re-vegetation as described in the 2015 FERC EA.

The 2015 FERC EA (Figure 5.8.2-1) provides renderings of the proposed powerhouse. SMUD would incorporate color and texture design features to minimize the potential visual impacts of the powerhouse. Furthermore, SMUD would coordinate with USFS visual resource specialists

Page 39 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 when developing final design plans for visual components of the powerhouse. Construction traffic would have the potential to create fugitive dust along Slab Creek Road. As described in the 2015 FERC EA, SMUD would minimize these impacts by implementing dust control suppression measures and revegetation to stabilize disturbed areas.

Construction activities associated with the Iowa Canyon Creek restoration would require the use of heavy construction equipment. Construction would result in short-term effects on views of the streambed and shoreline vegetation. Similar short-term construction impacts would occur within the SFAR, where gravel re-augmentation and habitat enhancement would occur. In addition, SMUD would use a rubber bladder cofferdam or similar device during construction to isolate the powerhouse construction area. These activities would result in short-term visual effects on the scenic quality of the project area during construction. However, long-term visual impacts would be beneficial, because the Iowa Canyon Creek streambed and SFAR gravel re-augmentation and habitat enhancements would restore those areas to a more natural state and would restore views of Iowa Canyon Creek from the SFAR.

With implementation of the minimization measures described in the 2015 FERC EA and visual resource coordination with USFS, the proposed project’s impacts on scenic resources and the visual character of the project area would be less than significant. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Potential impacts of light and glare were addressed in the 2015 FERC EA. The proposed project would include outdoor security lights, located at the new powerhouse. The lighting would be hooded, directed downward, and restricted to areas required for safety, security, and active maintenance and operation. Therefore, with implementation of these minimization measures as required in the EA, the proposed project’s impacts related to light and glare and on nighttime views, would be less than significant.

Page 40 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest Range Assessment Project and Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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 non-agricultural uses?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land 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 non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Environmental Setting

The project area is within the steeply-sloped canyon of the SFAR and no farming occurs in the area. According to the El Dorado County zoning map (Slate Mountain), the south side of the SFAR is zoned for Residential Agriculture (40 acres). Lands below Slab Creek Dam north of the SFAR are zoned “Unclassifiable” (El Dorado County 2009).

Page 41 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Regulatory Setting

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and California Department of Conservation (CDC) are charged with analyzing farmland losses. In 1975, the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) began a program to produce agricultural resource maps based on soil quality and land use. In 1982, California created the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) within the CDC, to carry on the mapping activity from USDA–SCS (CDC 2004). The FMMP produces maps and statistical data used to analyze impacts on California’s agricultural resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status and is typically based on information obtained from aerial photographs and U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) data.

Williamson Act

The California Legislature passed the California Land Conservation Act (commonly referred to as the “Williamson Act”) in 1965, to preserve agricultural lands and open space by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. Under the Williamson Act, private land owners contract with counties and cities to voluntarily restrict privately owned land to agricultural and compatible open space uses. In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at rates consistent with their actual use, rather than their potential market value. The vehicle for these agreements is a rolling-term, 10-year contract that is automatically renewed unless either party files a “notice of nonrenewal.”

Timber Land Management

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is charged with fire protection and stewardship of over 31 million acres of California's privately owned wildlands. In addition, CAL FIRE provides varied emergency services in 36 of the state's 58 counties, via contracts with local governments. CAL FIRE also administers the federal Forest Legacy Program (FLP) and California’s Forest and Rangelands Assessments.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, b) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses; or conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

The project area is not within any designated or used agricultural lands. No Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, of Unique Farmland (in accordance with the CDC’s California Important Farmland Finder) is in the project area or immediate vicinity (CDC 2015). Furthermore, the proposed project would not conflict with an existing Williamson Act contract or agricultural zoning. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on farmland conversion or existing Williamson Act contracts.

Page 42 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 c, d, e) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)); result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Potential impacts on existing forest land/timberland conversion were addressed in the 2015 FERC EA. The proposed project would include removal of mature trees for construction of the new powerhouse. The number of trees removed would not constitute a change to existing forest zoning or use timberland harvest. In addition, the Iowa Canyon Creek reconfiguration plan would result in the removal of approximately 22 alder trees; however, SMUD would revegetate Iowa Canyon Creek with white alder or willows to compensate for the loss of trees, once construction is complete.

No USFS timber preserve/production zoning classifications are located in the project area. Furthermore, no trees would be removed from USFS lands. ENF identified 358,538 acres of suitable timber harvest lands in its management plan (USFS 1988). ENF forest management activities would not be affected by the removal of trees on SMUD lands.

Furthermore, the project area is located within lands zoned by El Dorado County for residential agriculture and “unclassifiable.” The proposed project would not result in rezoning of forest or timberland or conversion of forest land to non-forest land. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on existing forestland and timber resources and related zoning would be less than significant.

Page 43 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.3 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 non-attainment 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?

Environmental Setting

The project area is in central El Dorado County within the Mountain Counties Air Basin (MCAB), which includes all of Amador, Calaveras, Mariposa, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra, and Tuolumne counties, and the majority of El Dorado and Placer counties. Air quality in this portion of El Dorado County is regulated by the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDCAQMD).

Ambient concentrations of air pollutant emissions are determined by the amount of emissions released by pollutant sources, the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute such emissions, and the stability of the pollutants (i.e., breakdown of pollutants through chemical reactions). Natural factors that affect transport, dilution, and pollutant stability include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and the presence of sunlight. The environmental factors and pollutant sources that affect ambient air pollutant concentrations are discussed separately below.

El Dorado County consists of hilly and mountainous terrain that affects airflow patterns throughout the county. These mountain and hill formations direct surface air flows, cause shallow vertical mixing, and create areas of high pollutant concentrations by hindering dispersion. Because of its proximity to the Sacramento Valley, the MCAB and El Dorado County are prone to receiving pollutant transport from more populated and traffic-heavy areas.

Page 44 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) have identified six air pollutants as being of federal and State concern: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and particulate matter (PM). PM is subdivided into two classes, based on particle size: PM equal to or less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10), and PM equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5).

Health-based air quality standards have been established for these pollutants by EPA at the federal level and by ARB at the State level. These standards are referred to as the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS), respectively. The NAAQS and CAAQS were established to protect the public with a margin of safety from adverse health effects caused by exposure to air pollution. Both EPA and ARB designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, maintenance, or unclassified for the various pollutant standards according to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), respectively. An area is designated nonattainment/transitional to signify that the area is close to attaining the standard for that pollutant. The “unclassified” designation is used in an area that cannot be classified as meeting or not meeting the standards, based on available information.

With respect to the CAAQS, the MCAB currently is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone and PM10, and as an attainment or unclassified area for all other pollutants. With respect to the NAAQS, the MCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone and as an attainment or unclassified area for all other pollutants.

Regulatory Setting

Air quality in the project area is regulated at the federal level by EPA, at the State level by ARB, and at the local level by the EDCAQMD. Each of these agencies has developed rules, regulations, and policies to comply with applicable legislation. Although EPA regulations may not be superseded, both State and local regulations may be more stringent.

Federal

EPA is charged with implementing national air quality programs, with air quality mandates drawn primarily from the CAA, enacted in 1970. The most recent major amendments passed by Congress occurred in 1990. The CAA required the EPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS. The CAA also required each state to prepare an air quality control plan, referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs, to incorporate additional control measures for reducing air pollution. The SIP is modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The EPA is responsible for reviewing all state SIPs, to determine conformation to the mandates of the CAAA, and to determine whether implementation will achieve air quality goals.

State

ARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs, and for implementing the CCAA. The 1988 CCAA required ARB to establish

Page 45 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 the CAAQS. ARB has established CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, visibility- reducing PM, and the above-mentioned criteria air pollutants. In most cases the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS. Differences in the standards generally are explained by the health effects studies considered during the standard-setting process and the interpretation of the studies. In addition, the CAAQS incorporate a margin of safety to protect sensitive individuals.

The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The act specifies that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources, and provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.

Among ARB’s other responsibilities are overseeing local air district compliance with California and federal laws, approving local air quality plans, submitting SIPs to the EPA, monitoring air quality, determining and updating area designations and maps, and setting emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, off-road vehicles, and fuels.

ARB and local air pollution control districts currently are developing plans for meeting new national air quality standards for ozone and PM2.5. Most recently, pursuant to the CAA requirement that all states and local governments prepare a baseline emissions inventory for areas that are designated to exceed NAAQS, ARB developed a 2012 baseline emissions inventory for a SIP submittal. The SIP submittal was approved by ARB in June 2014, and was submitted to EPA in July 2014 (ARB 2014a).

Local

EDCAQMD attains and maintains air quality conditions in El Dorado County through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues. The clean air strategy of EDCAQMD includes preparing plans for attainment of ambient air-quality standards, adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning sources of air pollution, and issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollution. EDCAQMD also inspects stationary sources of air pollution and responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by the CAA, CAAA, and the CCAA.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Construction emissions are considered short-term and temporary, but they have the potential to substantially affect air quality. Fugitive PM dust emissions are among the pollutants of greatest concern with respect to construction. These emissions can lead to adverse health effects and nuisance concerns, such as reduced visibility and dust on exposed surfaces. Excavation and grading are typically the primary sources of fugitive PM dust emissions from construction. The proposed project’s primary fugitive dust-generating activities would include clearing and grubbing, importing fill material for the new powerhouse yard, blasting for the new powerhouse foundation, and grading the access road and powerhouse yard. Movement of vehicles on unpaved roads also

Page 46 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 can generate fugitive PM dust emissions. Construction fugitive PM dust emissions can vary greatly, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the number and types of equipment being operated, vehicle speeds, local soil conditions, weather conditions, and the amount of earth disturbance (e.g., site grading, excavation, cut-and-fill).

Emissions of ozone precursors, reactive organic gases (ROG), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), are generated primarily from mobile sources (i.e., delivery vehicles, construction worker vehicles) and off-road construction equipment. These emissions vary as a function of vehicle trips per day associated with delivery of construction materials and worker commute trips, as well as the types and numbers of heavy-duty, off-road equipment used and the intensity and frequency of their operation.

Construction emissions were modeled using El Dorado County-specific emission factors contained in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and ARB’s on-road mobile source emissions inventory model, EMFAC (CAPCOA 2013; ARB 2013). The analysis used conservative assumptions regarding the construction schedule, numbers of construction equipment, and truck trips per day, to develop a conservative estimate of daily construction emissions. Fugitive dust emissions were modeled using emission factors and methodologies from EPA’s AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (EPA 2015).

Table 3.3-1 shows the proposed project’s daily construction emissions compared with the EDCAQMD thresholds of significance. A detailed summary of the calculations is provided in Appendix B. The calculated daily construction emissions would not exceed any of the applicable thresholds of significance. Considering that the project’s emissions would be below established thresholds and the fact that SMUD would implement EDCAQMD fugitive dust control measures (i.e., Fugitive Dust Plan [FDP] Application and Rule 403) as described in the Project Description to minimize exhaust and fugitive PM dust emissions, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable air quality plan. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on local air quality management planning would be less than significant. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

As described in response to a), project construction emissions would not exceed the applicable EDCAQMD thresholds of significance. The proposed project would not include extensive cut- and-fill or earth-moving activities that could result in high fugitive PM dust concentrations that could exceed an ambient air quality standard. In addition, implementation of EDCAQMD- required fugitive dust control measures would minimize fugitive PM dust (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5). According to the neighboring Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), projects that implement all Basic Construction Emission Control Practices, such as those included in EDCAQMD’s required fugitive dust control measures, and would not require extensive daily site disturbance (i.e., 15 acres per day maximum) would not generate PM10 or PM2.5 concentrations that would exceed ambient air quality standards. Therefore, because the proposed project would not generate daily emissions that would exceed EDCAQMD thresholds of significance and would implement EDCAQMD fugitive dust control measures (i.e., FDP Application and Rule 403) for a relatively small amount of excavation and grading, construction emissions would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or

Page 47 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 projected air quality violation. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts would be less than significant.

Table 3.3-1. Summary of Construction Emissions for the New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project

Daily Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) Construction Phase ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 Iowa Canyon Creek Reconfiguration 1.71 21.59 2.59 1.22 Road Improvements 1.55 20.07 1.21 0.91 White Rock Tunnel and Adit 1.75 22.15 1.25 0.98 Penstock and Boating Flow Valve 1.27 18.61 1.00 0.72 Powerhouse Construction 1.83 23.57 32.65 5.08 SFAR Habitat Improvement 9.41 10.92 0.44 0.40 SFAR Gravel Augmentation 9.64 19.14 3.98 1.07 Maximum Daily Emissions 9.64 23.57 14.93 2.40 EDCAQMD Threshold of Significance 1 82 82 - - Exceeds Thresholds? No No - -

Notes: EDCAQMD = El Dorado County Air Quality Management District; lbs/day = pounds per day; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns; PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns; ROG = reactive organic gases; SFAR = South Fork American River 1 There are no specific construction thresholds of significance. Therefore, operational thresholds were used as significance thresholds for construction emissions. Source: compiled by AECOM in 2015

c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

As described above, project construction emissions would be below thresholds and would implement EDCAQMD-required fugitive dust control measures. EDCAQMD considers compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust emissions impacts to less than significant), consistent with air quality plans in the region to reduce emissions. Because short-term construction emissions would be below the applicable significance thresholds, the proposed project would not generate a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality pollutants in an area that is nonattainment under a State or federal ambient air quality standards. Furthermore, the proposed project is not a land use project that would generate trips or increase population to an extent not planned in a local general plan. Rather, the proposed project would generate hydroelectric power for the region without contributing to long-term regional operational emissions. Therefore, the proposed project’s air quality impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Page 48 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

In addition to ozone precursors, the proposed project also would generate other criteria air pollutant emissions (e.g., CO and PM2.5) that could affect sensitive receptors on a local level. Pollutants of highest concern that could affect these receptors would include CO and diesel PM. In addition, because the project area is in El Dorado County and the project would include excavation and grading, the project could potentially naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). These potential health risk impacts are discussed below.

CO Hotspots

The proposed project would occur in a rural area with low traffic volume roadways, which are not conditions conducive to formation of CO hotspots. At the time of this writing, EDCAQMD has not developed a screening threshold to evaluate CO hotspots for these types of projects where CO hotspots are highly unlikely to occur. However, the neighboring SMAQMD has established a screening-level traffic volume for identifying potential CO hotspots, which are localized areas that exceed the State or federal CO ambient air quality standard. The screening-level traffic volume is 31,600 vehicles per hour (SMAQMD 2014a). The proposed project’s maximum hourly construction vehicle volumes would not exceed or make a substantial (i.e., 5 percent or 1,580 vehicle trips per day) contribution to the screening level volumes. The maximum daily haul truck trips would be approximately five per day, which would occur throughout the construction work day. Construction workers would be transported to the construction site via vanpool, which would minimize the number of vehicles traveling on lower capacity roads, such as Slab Creek Reservoir Road. Furthermore, construction workers travel and construction site truck trips would occur at different times of the day (see Transportation discussion in this chapter), and not all construction-related vehicles would arrive at any particular intersection during the same hour. Therefore, considering the relatively low number of daily construction-related vehicle trips and the rural character of the project area (i.e., low-density, with low traffic congestion), CO hotspots would be very unlikely to occur, with or without the project. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on CO emissions would be less than significant.

Diesel PM

Project construction would result in generation of diesel PM emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment at the construction site. Diesel PM has been classified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by ARB; therefore, even short-term exposure could have potential health effects. Construction emissions would occur for approximately 2.5 years. During this time, diesel PM emissions would vary, depending on the amount and types of construction equipment used each day. However, diesel PM emissions would only occur during construction. The nearest residential receptor to the project area would be located approximately 2,200 feet to the north, which is substantially farther than the ARB-prescribed buffer distance (i.e., 500 feet). At that distance, emission concentrations have been shown to drop by approximately 70 percent (ARB 2005). Furthermore, typical human health risk assessments use an exposure period of 70 years, whereas the project would be constructed in approximately 2.5 years. Thus, considering the substantial buffer distance between the project site and sensitive receptors, the intermittent and temporary nature of construction, and relatively short exposure period (i.e., less than 4 percent of the typical exposure period for human health risk assessment), short-term construction

Page 49 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 activities would not generate a significant human health risk (i.e., greater than 10 in one million cancer risk or greater than one hazard index). Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts related to TAC emissions would be less than significant.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos

The proposed project would include excavation, grading, reconfiguration of Iowa Canyon Creek, and blasting for the new powerhouse foundation, all of which would require ground disturbance that would have the potential to encounter NOA. CDC has published maps to show areas of El Dorado County where NOA is likely to occur. This report shows that the proposed project would not be constructed in an area (or in proximity to an area) that has been identified to contain NOA (CDC 2000). Nevertheless, if NOA were encountered and identified by construction crews, all applicable requirements of ARB’s Asbestos Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations (Title 17, California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 93105) and EDCAQMD’s Rule 223-3 (Fugitive Dust–Asbestos Hazard Mitigation) would be implemented to minimize generation of NOA emissions. Both Asbestos ATCM and EDCAQMD Rule 223-3 describe the measures required to minimize generation of asbestos dust from demolition, site disturbance, asbestos removal, and disposal activities. Therefore, because the project area has not been identified to contain NOA, and because all ARB and EDCAQMD requirements would be implemented if NOA were encountered, the proposed project’s impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of the receptors. Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies.

Neither construction nor operation would include the types activities associated with strong odors (e.g., manufacturing, landfills, and farming). However, construction would generate diesel PM exhaust from heavy-duty trucks and off-road construction equipment, which can produce exhaust odors. The majority of the proposed project’s construction-related emissions would occur at the project site, approximately 2,200 feet from the nearest residential receptor. Construction-related odors would be short-term and construction equipment would not operate continuously throughout the entire 2.5-year construction period. Rather, construction emissions would be generated intermittently during the work day, only when specific equipment is needed, and would not generate substantial odors. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact from odors would be less than significant.

Page 50 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

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

3.4 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 Game or the U.S. 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 Game or the U.S. 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, 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?

Environmental Setting

The 2015 FERC EA provides a description of the existing biological setting. Specifically, Section 5.3 describes aquatic resources, including the aquatic reptile, amphibian, and fish species that occur or may occur in the project area. Section 5.4 describes the botanical resources and vegetation communities that occur or may occur, and Section 5.5 describes the upland wildlife species that occur or may occur.

Page 51 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Regulatory Setting

Federal

Federal Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implement the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (16 U.S. Code [USC] Section 1531 et seq.). Under FESA, threatened and endangered species on the federal list and their habitats (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Subsection 17.11, 17.12) are protected from “take” (i.e., activities that harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect) as well as any attempt to engage in any such conduct, unless a Section 10 Permit is granted to an individual or a Section 7 consultation and a Biological Opinion with incidental take provisions is issued by the lead federal agency.

Pursuant to the requirements of FESA, the agency determines whether any federally listed species or their designated critical habitat may be present and determines whether the proposed project would have the potential to affect those species, including through habitat loss. The agency determines whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under FESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species (16 USC Section 1536[3], [4]). (Under CEQA, such effects on species or their habitat would be considered significant and would require mitigation.)

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Most bird species (especially those that are breeding, migrating, or of limited distribution) are protected under federal and/or state regulations. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC Subsection 703-712), migratory bird species, their nests, and their eggs are protected from injury or death, as well as any project-related disturbances during the nesting season. As such, project-related disturbances must be reduced or eliminated during the nesting season.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has primary federal responsibility for regulating impacts on waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. The USACE requires that a permit be obtained if a project proposes to place structures within, over, or under navigable waters and/or discharge dredged or fill material into waters below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The USACE has established a series of nationwide permits that authorize certain activities in waters of the U.S.

Waters of the U.S. are defined as: All waters used in interstate or foreign commerce; all interstate waters including interstate wetlands; all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent and ephemeral streams), mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes or natural ponds, where the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce; and impoundments of these waters, tributaries of these waters, or wetlands adjacent to these waters (CWA Section 404; 33 CFR

Page 52 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Part 328). The limit of USACE jurisdiction for non-tidal waters (including non-tidal perennial and intermittent watercourses and tributaries to such watercourses) in the absence of adjacent wetlands is defined by the OHWM.

The OHWM is defined as: The line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas (CWA Section 404; 33 CFR Part 328).

Wetlands are defined as, “Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” (CWA Section 404; 33 CFR Part 328)

In addition, CWA Section 401 (Water Quality Certification) is enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which delegates its authority to nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). Projects that may result in a discharge to U.S. surface waters and/or “waters of the state” including wetlands (all types) year round and seasonal streams, lakes and all other surface waters require a federal permit. Waste Discharge Requirements are required pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260 for the discharge of waste, including dredged material or fill that could affect the quality of the waters of the state.

State

California Endangered Species Act

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits the take of state-listed threatened and endangered species. Under CESA, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is responsible for maintaining a list of rare, threatened, and endangered species designated under state law (California Fish and Game Code 2070-2079). The CDFW also maintains lists of candidate species, species of special concern, and fully protected species. Candidate species are those taxa, which have been formally recognized by the CDFW and are under review for addition to the state threatened and endangered list. Species of special concern are those taxa, which are considered sensitive and this list serves as a “watch list.” Fully protected species are those designated as such under California Fish and Game Code §§3511, 4700, or 5050. Pursuant to the requirements of CESA, agencies reviewing proposed projects within their jurisdictions must determine whether any state-listed species have potential to occur within a proposed project site and if the proposed project would have any significant impacts upon such species. Project-related impacts on those species would be considered significant and require mitigation, and impacts on species of concern could be considered significant under certain circumstances. The CDFW can authorize take, if an incidental take permit is issued by the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce in compliance with FESA, or if the director of the CDFW issues a permit under Section 2080 in those cases where it is demonstrated that the impacts are minimized and mitigated.

Page 53 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380

Several federal and state statutes protect rare, threatened, and endangered species. Under the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380 provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare, threatened, or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions of endangered, rare, or threatened provided in FESA and CESA. This section of the Guidelines provides public agencies with the ability to protect a species from any potential impacts of proposed projects until the respective government agency has the opportunity to designate (list) that species as protected, if warranted.

The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintains an extensive list of plant species that it considers to be rare, threatened, or endangered, but these lists have no designated status or protection under federal or state endangered species legislation. Impacts to CNPS listed species (e.g., CNPS list 1B and 2) are considered during CEQA environmental review.

California Fish and Game Code—Protection of Bird Nests and Raptors

Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Section 3503.5 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any raptors (i.e., species in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes), including their nests or eggs. Typical violations include destruction of active nests as a result of tree removal and failure of nesting attempts, resulting in loss of eggs and/or young. These violations can be caused by human activity and disturbance of nesting pairs. Projects that could result in impacts on bird nests and raptors would be subject to the California Fish and Game Code.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1616

The CDFW is authorized under the California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1616 to develop mitigation measures and enter into Streambed Alteration Agreements with applicants whose proposed projects would obstruct the flow of, or alter the bed, channel, or bank of a river or stream in which there is a fish or wildlife resource, including intermittent and ephemeral streams and wetlands. Biological components of rivers, streams, or lakes may include aquatic and riparian vegetation, aquatic animals and fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and terrestrial species that derive benefits from the stream system.

Local

El Dorado County General Plan

The El Dorado County General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, contains goals related to biological resources. The applicable natural resources goals of this element are summarized below.

Goal 7.4: Wildlife and Vegetation Resources. Identify, conserve, and manage wildlife, wildlife habitat, fisheries, and vegetation resources of significant biological, ecological, and recreational value.

Page 54 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

• Objective 7.4.1: Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species. The County shall protect State and federally recognized rare, threatened, or endangered species and their habitats consistent with Federal and State laws.

• Objective 7.4.2: Identify and Protect Resources. Identification and protection, where feasible, of critical fish and wildlife habitat including deer winter, summer, and fawning ranges; deer migration routes; stream and river riparian habitat; lake shore habitat; fish spawning areas; wetlands; wildlife corridors; and diverse wildlife habitat.

• Objective 7.4.3: Coordination with Appropriate Agencies. Coordinate wildlife and vegetation protection programs with appropriate Federal and State agencies.

• Objective 7.4.4: Forest and Oak Woodland Resources. Protect and conserve forest and woodland resources for their wildlife habitat, recreation, water production, domestic livestock grazing, production of a sustainable flow of wood products, and aesthetic values.

• Objective 7.4.5: Native Vegetation and Landmark Trees. Protect and maintain native trees including oaks and landmark and heritage trees.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures 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 Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

The 2015 FERC EA evaluates potential impacts on species that have the potential to occur in the project area as summarized below.

Plants

Focused special-status plant surveys were conducted in the project area in 2010 (SMUD 2014). Two special-status plants species—Brandegee’s clarkia (Clarkia biloba, ssp. brandegeae) and California nutmeg (Torreya californica)—were identified. Neither of these species is federally or State listed; however, Clarkia biloba ssp. brandegeae is on the CNPS List 4 and USFS Watchlist, while Torreya californica is only on the USFS Watchlist. A total of 14 distinct populations of Brandegee’s clarkia and one California nutmeg sapling were found in the Project area. Of these, 12 populations of Brandegee’s clarkia and the California nutmeg sapling likely would be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project. SMUD would implement a special-status plant protection plan, as required by the 2015 FERC EA, to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status plant species. FERC would require this plan to contain the following measures: 1) avoiding placement of power poles within areas of large populations of Brandegee’s clarkia; 2) flagging a buffer around Brandegee’s clarkia populations to be avoided during construction; 3) conducting a Worker Environmental Awareness Program that would include discussion of measures to avoid impacts on special-status plants; 4) discouraging pedestrian traffic near remaining populations of Brandegee’s clarkia; and 5) excluding herbicide

Page 55 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 treatments near remaining Brandegee’s clarkia populations. With implementation of this plan, any impacts on special status plants would be less than significant.

Invertebrates and Fish

During the UARP relicensing process, SMUD conducted extensive benthic macroinvertebrate and fish population field studies as described in SMUD’s FERC license application (SMUD 2014 and in the 2015 FERC EA. No special-status aquatic invertebrate or fish species were documented within the 0.25-mile reach downstream from Slab Creek Dam or within Iowa Canyon Creek. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts on special-status invertebrate and fish species.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Suitable habitat for Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii, FYLF) and Pacific (western) pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata, PPT) exists along the SFAR. However, during SMUD’s multiyear studied to support the FERC relicensing process (SMUD 2014), these species were not found. These surveys were conducted between 2002–2004 for the UARP (FERC and USFS 2008), and during SMUD’s 2011 field surveys (SMUD 2014) for the proposed project. The USFS documented FYLF approximately 0.5 mile upstream from the White Rock Powerhouse, and juvenile PPT also have been observed within the SFAR, downstream from the project area. Water temperatures within the 0.25-mile reach immediately below Slab Creek Dam are likely too cold to support FYLF or PPT. Therefore, these species are not expected to occur in this stretch of SFAR and therefore would not be affected by the proposed project.

If populations of FYLF or PPT occur downstream from the project, they could be affected by altered flow regimes associated with boating flows. These high flows could displace adult or juveniles or wash eggs downstream. The UARP includes mitigation measures for managing high flows, including ramping rates of 1 foot per hour (Environmental Article 1-3) during required high flows, which would allow any FYLF or PPT individuals to move to upgradient areas. Because of implementation of these measures into the UARP, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on any downstream populations of FYLP and PPT. Environmental Article 1-5, Measure 3 of SMUD’s UARP FERC license requires preparation of a monitoring plan for reptiles and amphibians (specifically FYLF), including in the area below Slab Creek Dam, to determine potential impacts from overall UARP operations.

Birds

Several special-status bird species could occur in the project area. Section 5.5.1.2 of the 2015 FERC EA provides a summary of special-status bird species that have the potential to occur. These species could be affected by removal of occupied habitat and loss of nest habitat or active nests by tree removal, if conducted during the breeding season. Individual bird species also could be directly affected by collisions with construction equipment and new transmission lines. Indirect impacts could result from construction-related noise, resulting in nest/roost abandonment or failure. Intermittent noise from construction could lead to birds moving out of the immediate area during the 2.5-year construction period. However, sufficient forest habitat is available in the vicinity of the proposed project to accommodate movement of bird species to adjacent habitat if temporarily displaced by construction noise.

Page 56 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

To minimize the possibility of impacts on breeding wildlife, including bird species, FERC is requiring SMUD to schedule tree removal after August and before spring within any given year, outside the typical nesting season for birds (SMUD 2014). In addition, to minimize the potential for avian mortality associated with the new transmission lines, FERC is requiring SMUD to follow construction design standards for power lines, using the Avian Protection Plan Guidelines (APLIC and USFWS 2005). This requirement is also contained in SMUD’s UARP FERC license in Conservation Article1-12, Measure 6 (FERC and USFS 2008). Given these license requirements, impacts on special-status birds from the proposed project would be less than significant.

Mammals

The project area contains suitable habitat for several special-status mammal species (see Section 5.5.1.1 of the 2015 FERC EA). These include California ringtail (Bassariscus astutus raptor) and several special-status bat species.

The proposed project has the potential to result in habitat loss for ringtail. Furthermore, individual ringtails may be affected by construction related noise and may avoid the project area. However, the Slab Creek Reservoir area provides a large area of suitable habitat for ringtails where ringtail could relocate during construction. SMUD plans to construct the proposed facilities during daylight hours. Ringtails are typically active at night, which would be outside of the normal construction (daylight) hours. However, as part of the final design, SMUD biologists would conduct a pre-construction survey to identify any hollow trees, logs, snags, rock outcrops, or other suitable habitat elements for ringtail denning that may occur within the project site or accessible areas within 0.5 mile of the work area. Any suitable habitat elements for ringtail denning would be marked in the field and avoided during construction. Therefore, impacts on ringtail resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.

Construction of the proposed project could also result in disturbance of roosting bats from tree removal, blasting vibrations, nighttime lighting, or construction noise that could result in roost abandonment and mortality. To minimize potential impacts on special-status bats, the 2015 FERC EA and the preliminary 4E condition from the USFS require that SMUD perform a pre- construction bat survey. The exact methods and timing of the surveys were refined in coordination with the regulatory agencies in spring of 2015. Summer and winter surveys will be conducted to estimate the extent and type of occupied roosting habitat in the project vicinity. If the surveys indicate the potential for impacts on a maternity roost or hibernating special-status bats, SMUD will develop and implement appropriate impact avoidance measures in consultation with USFS, CDFW, and USFWS (depending on the listing status of the affected species) before and/or during construction. With implementation of the bat survey and development of protection measures to be implemented for special-status bats prior to and during construction in consultation with the agencies, impacts on special-status bats from the proposed project would be less than significant.

Operation of the proposed project would also have the potential to disturb bat species that could roost or forage in the project area, potentially resulting in some habitat loss. However, there is abundant suitable bat habitat in the vicinity of the project where bats could relocate if disturbed by project operations. Therefore, potential impacts to bat species as a result of project operations would be less than significant.

Page 57 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 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 Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

The proposed project would result in the permanent loss of approximately 200 linear feet of riparian habitat, totaling 0.1 acre along the SFAR, where the powerhouse and associated structures would be located on the south bank of SFAR. Reconfiguration of the mouth of Iowa Canyon Creek would also result in the temporary loss of approximately 140 linear feet of riparian vegetation. The 2015 FERC EA requires SMUD to develop a detailed plan to reconfigure the creek and a plan to replace riparian trees along Iowa Canyon Creek to offset temporary and permanent impacts on riparian habitat.

The regulatory agencies would be consulted on the Iowa Canyon Creek reconfiguration and the habitat enhancement projects along SFAR and would also serve as permitting agencies for the overall project. SMUD would obtain a CWA Section 404 permit for impacts on waters of the U.S. including wetlands from to USACE and would comply with all permit conditions. As a condition of the CWA 404 permit, SMUD would obtain Clean Water Certification from the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and comply with all permit conditions. SMUD would also obtain a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game code for impacts on riparian habitat under CDFW jurisdiction and comply with all permit conditions. Because of the FERC requirement to develop a detailed Iowa Canyon Creek reconfiguration plan and the conditions that would be required in the project’s Section 404 and 401, and Streambed Alteration Agreement, any impacts on wetlands and riparian habitat from the proposed project would be less than significant. 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, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

The proposed project would result in 0.02 acre of permanent impact on waters of the U.S. or wetlands, as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As discussed under b), SMUD would obtain a Section 404 Nationwide permit for impacts on jurisdictional waters of the U.S., Section 401 Clean Water Certification from the RWQCB, and a SAA from CDFW. The 2015 FERC EA also requires SMUD to work with the USACE and CDFW to develop measures to compensate for the loss of jurisdictional wetlands. SMUD would plant riparian vegetation along Iowa Canyon Creek, after reconfiguring the confluences of the creek with the SFAR. This may serve as partial mitigation for these impacts on jurisdictional waters. Other specific requirements would be specified in the respective permits and would be implemented by SMUD. By implementing required permit conditions for impacts on federally protected wetlands, this impact would be less than significant. 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?

The project would place a rubber, water-filled cofferdam within a portion of the SFAR during construction of the powerhouse and boating flows release valve. However, this activity would be

Page 58 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 focused on the southern bank of the SFAR and any impacts on fish movement would be less than significant because the river would flow past the cofferdam. Therefore, the existing movement corridor along the SFAR would be maintained during project construction. The powerhouse and boating flow release valve would be on the banks of the SFAR and would not affect fish movement during construction or operation. If SMUD requests and is granted a variance from minimum flows to facilitate construction, SMUD would work with FERC to ensure that the river channel is wetted and that pools remain as full as practicable. Therefore, the SFAR would remain available for fish to move both upstream and downstream from the project area. If a variance is needed, SMUD would discuss requirements with the regulatory and natural resource agencies including USFS, SWRCB, CDFW, and USFWS.

The proposed project would improve aquatic habitat in the SFAR immediately downstream from the Slab Creek Dam plunge pool. The project would lower the streambed and create a channel through existing elevated riffles to ensure that minimum streamflow releases from the dam would flow as surface water rather than subsurface flow. This would increase the flow connectivity between existing pools thereby improving fish passage. This would also improve riffle habitat for other aquatic species, especially benthic macroinvertebrates, which are important prey items for Rainbow Trout, and that are currently present in reduced density.

The project would also have short-term impacts on fish passage at the mouth of Iowa Canyon Creek but would have substantial long-term beneficial impacts on fish passage by restoring the creek to a more natural grade and streambed width, allowing more surface flow and fish passage during low flows. As described in the 2015 FERC EA, fish have been stranded in upstream pools in Iowa Canyon Creek. Reconfiguring the mouth of the creek would improve downstream fish passage. In particular, downstream passage would be improved for Rainbow Trout that are largely produced from the resident native population in the upper portion of Iowa Canyon Creek. In addition, the reconfiguration of the lower portion of Iowa Canyon Creek to a natural grade would reduce isolated pools and allow surface flow throughout the reach to its confluence with the SFAR and thereby reduce potential for fish stranding and predation.

Some upland wildlife species may avoid the project area temporarily during construction because of construction noise or increased human presence. However, sufficient habitat exists adjacent to the project area to allow movement of wildlife species. Furthermore, the project area does not contain a known nursery area for any upland species, such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus).

Because fish wildlife species would continue to move through the project area (except for some short-term avoidance), and because no wildlife nursery sites would be affected substantially and the SFAR habitat improvement and Iowa Canyon Creek portions of the project would improve fish passage, the proposed project’s impacts on fish and wildlife movement would be less than significant and in some cases beneficial. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

The El Dorado County General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, contains a number of goals, objectives, and policies to protect biological resources. However, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

Page 59 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

For example, Objective 7.4.4, Forest and Oak Woodland Resources, requires the County to protect and conserve forest and woodland resources, and Objective 7.4.5, Native Vegetation and Landmark Trees, protects and maintains native trees, including oaks and landmark and heritage trees. The proposed project would not conflict with these policies because the project would not affect landmark trees. Moreover, for removal of existing trees near the SFAR, SMUD would comply with any USFS requirements regarding tree removals. The 2015 FERC EA requires replacement of riparian trees and shrubs. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on local policies or ordinances protecting trees and other biological resources. 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?

No adopted habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved plans govern the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on adopted habitat conservations plans.

Page 60 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

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

3.5 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 geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal resource pursuant to AB52?

Environmental Setting

Section 5.7 of the 2015 FERC EA describes the environmental setting for cultural resources that may be present in the project area. The following sections provide a synopsis of the area’s prehistory, ethnography, and history.

Prehistoric Context

The following discussion of the prehistoric background is adapted from the Framework for Archaeological Research Management: National Forests of the North-Central Sierra Nevada (Jackson et al. 1994). This publication proposed a tentative cultural chronology and cultural history for the North-Central Sierra Nevada. This chronology for the American River drainage has been further refined through investigations conducted by Tremaine and Jackson (1994, 1995) and Boyd (1998), and was synthesized by Jackson and Ballard (1999). Fredrickson (1973, 1974, and 1993) proposed an all-encompassing scheme for cultural development while acknowledging that these general trends may manifest themselves differently and some variation may exist between sub-regions. These general cultural periods (i.e., Paleo-Indian, Early, Middle and Late Archaic, and Emergent Periods) are used here in connection with the North-Central Sierra Nevada chronology because of their relevancy to the lower foothill region of the project area, in the vicinity of Folsom. The following list of temporal periods for the Sierra Nevada region, including the project area, is based on the synthesis provided by Jackson and Ballard (1999):

Page 61 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

• Late Pleistocene Pattern and Period (>10,000 Before Present [B.P.]) • Early Holocene Pattern and Period (circa [ca.] 10,000–7,000 B.P.) • Archaic Pattern and Period (ca. 7,000–3,200 B.P.) • Early and Middle Sierran Patterns (ca. 3,200–600 B.P.) • Early Sierran Period (ca. 3,200–1,400 B.P.) • Middle Sierran Period (ca. 1,400–600 B.P.) • Late Sierran Period (ca. 600–150 B.P.)

Ethnographic Context

The Nisenan, or Southern Maidu, occupied the area that encompasses the project area. The Nisenan territory included the drainages of the Yuba, Bear, and American Rivers and the lower drainages of the Feather River, extending from the crest of the Sierra Nevada to the banks of the Sacramento River. In the Nisenan territory, several political divisions, constituting tribelets, each had their own respective headmen who lived in the larger villages. However, which of these larger population centers wielded more influence than others is not known, although they were all located in the foothill areas. Hill Nisenan, located near Placerville, formed one such tribelet, with strong affiliations with groups along the ridges and lower drainages of the American River (Wilson and Towne 1978). According to Kroeber (1925), the larger villages could have had populations in excess of 500 individuals, although smaller settlements consisting of 15 to 25 people and extended families were more common. In general, more substantial and permanent Nisenan villages were not established on the valley plain between the Sacramento River and the foothills, although this area was used as a rich hunting and gathering ground. Several village sites are depicted by Wilson and Towne (1978) along the SFAR from east of Placerville to a point near the town of Folsom. These are the villages of Tumeli, Koloma, Chapa, Ekelepakan, and Yukulu Valley.

The 2015 FERC EA provides a description of Nisenan food gathering, including acorns, pine nuts, roots, berries, and fruits. It also describes Nisenan hunting techniques and weapons. Fish, including salmon and sturgeon, were caught with nets, gorges, hooks, and harpoons, and freshwater clams and mussels were gathered in the larger waterways.

Euro-American contact with native cultures began with infrequent excursions by Spanish explorers and Hudson’s Bay Company trappers in the early 1800s. In general, indigenous lifeway’s remained stable for centuries, until the early to middle decades of the nineteenth century. With the coming of Russian trappers and Spanish missionaries, cultural patterns began to be disrupted as social structures within and among groups were stressed. An estimated 75 percent of the Valley Nisenan population died in the malaria epidemic of 1833. With the influx of Europeans during the Gold Rush era, the native population was further reduced because of disease and violent relations with the miners. Today, the Nisenan and Miwok are reinvesting in their traditional culture; through newfound political, economic, and social influence, they now constitute a growing and thriving native community in California.

Historic Context

The 2015 FERC EA provides a brief history of El Dorado County, including its history of gold mining, logging, farming, and tourism. It describes the history of utilities development in

Page 62 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

California, including the development of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and SMUD and the early development of hydroelectric power and the UARP, including its dams and reservoirs.

Regulatory Setting

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

The project requires a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers; thus it is subject to the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800, as amended). The USACE is the lead federal agency for the proposed project. Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings, or those they fund or permit, on properties that may be eligible for listing, or that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The 36 CFR 60.4 regulations describe the criteria to evaluate cultural resources for inclusion in the NRHP. Cultural resources can be significant on the federal, state, or local level. Such resources are required to retain integrity and must exhibit an association with broad patterns of our history, be associated with an important person, embody a distinctive characteristic, or yield information important to prehistory or history.

The NRHP is a register maintained by the Secretary of the Interior of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. A property may be listed in the NRHP if it meets criteria for evaluation defined in 36 CFR 60.4:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and:

• That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

• That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

• That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

• That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The 36 CFR 800 regulations, implementing Section 106, call for considerable consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Indian tribes, and interested members of the public throughout the process. The four principal steps are as follows:

1. Initiate the Section 106 process (36 CFR 800.3). 2. Identify historic properties, resources eligible for inclusion in the NRHP (36 CFR 800.4). 3. Assess the effects of the undertaking to historic properties in the APE (36 CFR 800.5). 4. Resolve adverse effects (36 CFR Part 800.6).

Page 63 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Adverse effects on historic properties often are resolved through preparation of a memorandum of agreement or a programmatic agreement developed in consultation with the lead federal agency, the SHPO, Indian tribes, and interested members of the public. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation also is invited to participate.

California Environmental Quality Act

CEQA provides a broad definition of what constitutes a cultural or historical resource. Cultural resources can include traces of prehistoric habitation and activities, historic-era sites and materials, and places used for traditional Native American observances or places with special cultural significance. In general, it is required to treat any trace of human activity more than 50 years in age as a potential cultural resource.

CEQA states that if a project would have significant impacts on important cultural resources, then alternative plans or mitigation measures must be considered. However, only significant cultural resources (termed “historical resources”) need to be addressed. The State CEQA Guidelines define a historical resource as a resource listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1). A resource may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR if it:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The State CEQA Guidelines also require consideration of unique archaeological resources (Section 15064.5). As used in PRC Section 21083.2, the term “unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information,

• Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type, or

• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as

Page 64 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Assembly Bill 52 amended CEQA to require lead agencies to consult with Native American tribes that are geographically and culturally affiliated with the area of proposed projects and to analyze whether the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources, which is a newly defined environmental resource under CEQA. Implementation of AB52 formally began July 1, 2015.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

As described in the 2015 FERC EA, SMUD conducted a detailed survey of cultural resources in the project area in 2010. An additional survey was conducted in 2012 (Stillwater Sciences and AECOM 2012). The only historic-era resource (more than 45 years old) identified in the project area was Slab Creek Road. Slab Creek Road was constructed in 1967 as an access road to replace damaged parts of historic Chute Camp Road. Chute Camp Road was constructed in the 1890s and is associated with the operations of the nearby American River Land & Lumber Company and the road later became part of the national forest road system. As originally constructed, Slab Creek Road overlapped with a small section of Chute Camp Road. However, that section was refurbished and modernized for SMUD’s use and is no longer considered representative of the historic Chute Camp Road. The historic segment of Chute Camp Road is adjacent to and outside the project area. The proposed project would use the overlapping segments of Slab Creek Road and modernized Chute Camp Road to access Adit #3 and the new powerhouse construction site. Slab Creek Road (which includes a portion of modernized Chute Camp Road) was evaluated for significance in 2012 and found not to meet NRHP or CRHR criteria due to a lack of historical and engineering significance (Stillwater Sciences and AECOM 2012). It is therefore also not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.

The two surveys also identified the remains of the splash dam constructed in early 1890s, which later served as a source for a flume that conveyed water to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) American River Powerhouse at the mouth of Rock Creek, approximately six miles downriver on the north side of the SFAR. The splash dam does not appear to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP/CRHR because of a lack of integrity, and it is therefore not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA (Stillwater Sciences and AECOM 2012)

Although no historical resources were identified on the proposed project site, the grading and material removal associated with project construction has the potential to expose previously unknown or unrecorded historical resources. These resources could be damaged or destroyed during construction activities. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 below would reduce this impact to less than significant.

Page 65 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Mitigation Measure CUL-1

If cultural resources (historic or archaeological) are discovered during the proposed project’s construction activities, they shall be evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR. Resource evaluations shall be conducted by individuals who meet the United States Secretary of Interior’s professional standards in archaeology and architectural history. If any of the resources meet the eligibility criteria identified in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, or CEQA Section 21083.2(g), SMUD will develop and implement an environmental safety training process before construction begins. At its discretion, SMUD may invite a Native American who is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area to observe the removal of native material.

Implementation of the Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure impacts on historical resources discovered during the proposed project’s construction are reduced to a less-than-significant level by avoiding, protecting, or appropriately excavating the resources. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

SMUD completed a detailed survey of archaeological resources in the project area (FERC 2015). This survey identified a new site with bedrock milling features containing one milling slick and 11 mortars; however, the resource is on the north bank of the SFAR, does not appear to meet NRHP criteria, and would not be affected by the proposed project.

Because construction of the powerhouse foundation would not require deep excavation and would primarily require blasting of bedrock, archaeological resources are unlikely to be encountered during construction and construction would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Therefore, no impact is anticipated to occur. However, grading and material removal associated during construction has the potential to expose previously unknown or unrecorded archaeological resources. These resources could be damaged or destroyed during construction activities. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Based on a review of the geologic map prepared by Wagner, et al. (1987), the project area is located partially within undifferentiated Paleozoic rocks (consisting of quartzite, schist, and minor amounts of crystalline limestone and dolomite) and partially within Mesozoic (plutonic) granitic rocks. Together, these formations comprise the basement rocks of the Sierra Nevada, which crystallized at great depths beneath the earth's surface from many different batches of magma. Because of the geologic processes involved as these rocks were formed (i.e., high temperature and pressure at great depth), they do not contain fossils. Thus, the proposed project is not anticipated to have an impact on paleontological resources. However, there is always the potential that unique paleontological resources could be encountered during construction in areas where there is no surface indication of their presence. Impacts to

Page 66 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 inadvertently discovered paleontological resources would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce this impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2

If paleontological resources are uncovered during any on-site construction activities, all work must stop immediately within 100 feet of the area and a Professional Paleontologist shall be retained to evaluate the deposits. Work in the area may only resume after authorization is granted by SMUD’s project manager in consultation with the Professional Paleontologist. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries?

As described above and in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, the project area is situated within Paleozoic and Mesozoic-age landforms. Thus, human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries, are not likely to be encountered during earth removal or ground-disturbing activities. However, construction could encounter buried human remains where there is no surface indication of their presence. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-3 would reduce this impact to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3

If human remains are discovered during the project’s construction activities, the requirements of California Health and Human Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Potentially damaging excavation shall be halted in the area of the remains, with a minimum radius of 50 feet, and the local County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the Coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact NAHC by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (Health and Safety Code Section 7050[c]). Pursuant to the provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC shall identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD designated by the NAHC shall have at least 48 hours to inspect the site and propose treatment and disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods. e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal resource pursuant to AB52?

SMUD consulted with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and local Native American groups and individuals pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and Section 21080.3 of CEQA, including amendments outlined in Assembly Bill 52. The initial consultation was conducted in 2010 and addressed the potential for important cultural resources and properties to be located within or adjacent to the proposed project and requested that the NAHC provide a list of local Native American consultants that may have information regarding prehistoric land use or other concerns. The NAHC response indicated that a search of the sacred land files did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources or traditional cultural places. The consultation also included contacting the local Native American

Page 67 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 groups identified by the NAHC including representatives of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, the El Dorado County Indian Council; the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria, the Todd Valley Miwok-Maidu Cultural Foundation, and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. In response the Washoe Tribe indicated project area is not in their ancestral sphere of influence. The Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians stated that all prehistoric cultural resources should be avoided and requested notification if ground disturbing activities are planned in the vicinity of prehistoric sites. The United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians requested a site visit prior to any ground disturbing activities. Follow-up phone calls were made to those individuals and groups from which no written response was received.

As part of continuing consultation, SMUD contacted interested Native American individuals and groups in a letter dated May 4, 2015. The contacted tribes included the El Dorado County Indian Council, the T’si-Akim Maidu, the United Auburn Indian Community, the Colfax-Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe, and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians. SMUD conducted follow- up phone calls on May 26, 2015, and left voicemail where voicemail was available.

The only direct phone contact made on May 26, 2015, was with the Colfax-Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe, who indicated the project area was part of their tribal territory and recommended the tribe be allowed to monitor any ground-disturbing activity. The United Auburn Indian Community contacted SMUD via email on May 27, 2015, requested a field visit to the project site and requested a paid tribal monitor be on-site during all ground-disturbing activities within any known cultural site boundaries. SMUD responded that further discussion would be required regarding any field monitoring efforts.

To date, NAHC’s sacred land surveys, along with SMUD’s consultations with the Native American tribes or individuals have not provided definitive evidence indicating that tribal cultural resources, as defined in Public Resources Code 21074, are present within the project footprint. Nevertheless, because SMUD may remove boulders and gravel from the site of the powerhouse and boating flow release valve before blasting, the proposed project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant.

Page 68 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-Than- Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant with Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.6 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 in 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 & 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 soils, 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 alternate wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Environmental Setting

Geology

As discussed in the 2008 FERC/USFS FEIS, the project area is located within the Sierra Nevada metamorphic belt, a 200-mile-long, northwest-trending geological feature that makes up the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada’s. In the project area, the SFAR cuts a gorge through the various rock formations located within the area that consists of quartzite, schists, crystalline limestone, and dolomite sedimentary rocks deposited 350 to 400 million years ago.

Page 69 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Soils

While the area is predominantly exposed bedrock, the mapped soils within the project area are listed in Table 3.6-1 and consist of Josephine Very rocky silt loam, Mariposa very rocky silt loam and metamorphic rock land (NRCS 2015). All three soil types have high surface runoff. These erosion potential of these soils types ranges widely.

Table 3.6-1. NRCS Soils Survey

Surface Erosion Restrictive layer Soil Plasticity Soil Runoff Wind Water Kind Hardness Index Josephine very rocky silt loam, High Low Moderate to High Paralithic Moderately 0 - 20 50 to 70 percent slopes bedrock cemented Mariposa very rocky silt loam, High Low Moderate to High Lithic bedrock Indurated 0 - 15 50 to 70 percent slopes Metamorphic rock land High -- -- Lithic bedrock Strongly -- cemented

Source: NRCS 2015

Geomorphology

As discussed in the 2015 FERC EA, the geomorphology of the SFAR is typical of a canyon- bound river, where surface water flows are forced by the presence of bedrock in the bends and banks of the channel, as well as by the presence of very large, colluvially derived boulders that have been rearranged to some extent by very high flows into stable, energy-dissipating structures.

The lower 500 feet of Iowa Canyon Creek between the mouth of the creek and a large waterfall/cascade complex contains alluvial materials transported from upstream reaches of the creek; colluvial rock from slope erosion along the lower 500 feet of creek; and remnants of construction material from Slab Creek Dam, access roads, batch plant used during dam construction, and equipment laydown areas. This streambed sediment has aggraded the lowermost 200 feet of the creek, forming an elevated mouth that affects streamflow as it enters the SFAR.

Seismicity

As discussed in the 2008 FERC/USFS FEIS, the nearest active fault and fault systems are the Maidu fault and an unnamed east-dipping fault that is located near the community of Rescue approximately 14 miles west of Slab Creek Dam. These faults are a part of the Bear Mountains Fault Zone within the Foothills fault system.

Page 70 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Regulatory Setting

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972; it prohibits the placement of structures intended for human occupancy from being built across active fault traces in California. It requires delineation of zones (Alquist-Priolo zones) along active faults in order to address seismic concerns as they relate to public safety and project design. The act only addresses the hazards of surface fault rupture and is not intended to regulate risks from other earthquake hazards such as liquefaction, landslides, or tsunamis. Cities and counties are required to regulate development projects within Alquist-Priolo zones.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act

The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires cities, counties, and local permitting agencies to regulate urban development and redevelopment projects within seismic hazard zones delineated by the State Geologist. Before a development permit can be granted for a project near a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical investigation must be conducted and appropriate measures incorporated into the project design.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures 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 California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)

Regional faulting is described in the 2008 FERC/USFS FEIS. Potentially active faults near the project area include the Maidu fault and an unnamed east-dipping fault located near the community of Rescue, approximately 14 miles west of the Slab Creek Dam (Bear Mountains fault zone or Rescue fault). Surface ground rupture along faults generally is limited to a linear zone a few yards wide. The closest Alquist-Priolo-zoned fault is more than 60 miles east of the project area. The closest fault mapped by the California Geological Survey is a part of the pre- Quaternary age Foresthill Fault System; more than 3 miles to the west. Because no active faults are mapped across the project area and it is not within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, fault ground rupture is unlikely (CGS 2012; Jennings and Bryant 2010). Therefore, during construction, workers would be at minimal risk from fault zone and ground rupture. Furthermore, project structures, such as the powerhouse and boating flow release valve, would have a low potential to be affected by a fault zone or ground rupture. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential impacts from risk of loss, injury, or death related to rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant.

Page 71 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

The project area is on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, about half-way between Sacramento and Lake Tahoe. As described in the 2008 FERC/USFS FEIS, seismic activity in the region occurs east and southeast of Lake Tahoe and south of Lake Oroville. The potentially active faults are described above in response to i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault represent the greatest threat and could result in a 6.5 magnitude earthquake.

The intensity of ground shaking at the project site would depend on the distance from an earthquake’s epicenter, the characteristics of the earthquake source, and the physical properties of the rock and soil between the epicenter and the project area. The California Geological Survey probabilistic seismic hazards ground-motion calculator (CGS 2008) was used to estimate the level of potential ground shaking in the project area. This indicated that a minimum horizontal acceleration of 0.145g could occur in the project area, with a 10 percent probability of an earthquake occurrence in a 50-year time frame (CGS 2008).

The new Slab Creek Powerhouse, penstock, and boating flow release valve would be designed to accommodate this level of ground acceleration, with an additional factor of safety to minimize the potential impacts on people and structures from ground shaking. Therefore, the proposed project’s potential impacts from ground shaking would be less than significant.

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Soil liquefaction most commonly occurs when ground-shaking from an earthquake causes a sediment layer saturated with groundwater to lose strength and take on the characteristics of a fluid, thus becoming similar to quicksand. Regional faulting is described in the 2008 FERC/USFW FEIS. However, the absence of a soil layer in the project area that has the conditions necessary for liquefaction precludes potential effects. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to seismic-caused ground failure, including liquefaction.

iv. Landslides?

The project area is within the SFAR canyon. Although the igneous and metamorphic rock that makes up the canyon walls is sound, surface weathering and jointing are present. A possibility exists for mass wasting, such as landslides, and landslides occur upstream from the project area, along the southern shore of Slab Creek Reservoir. However, project construction would not change the existing character of the rock or create undercutting of existing slopes. Therefore, the project would not be located in an area with a substantial landslide risk and would not change the probability of landslides in the immediate project area. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts related to landslides would be less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Potential impacts on soil erosion were addressed in the 2015 FERC EA, which found that exposed soils from project-related construction could contribute to sedimentation in both Iowa Canyon Creek and SFAR. Erosion could occur at the site of the powerhouse and boating flow release valve and yard construction. Further, the reconfiguration of Iowa Canyon Creek would include grading, excavating, transporting, and temporary stockpiling of soil, rock, and debris in

Page 72 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 the project area. Construction would remove vegetative cover and would expose site soils to erosion by wind and surface water runoff during storm events. However, as described in the 2015 FERC EA, SMUD would prepare and implement an Erosion Sedimentation Control Plan. In addition, SMUD would comply with existing stormwater regulations and would prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would outline a plan for best management practices (BMPs) to minimize potential soil erosion. The BMPs would include measures such as silt fences, fiber rolls, and revegetation. Both plans would be prepared and implemented by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, in consultation with state and federal resource agencies. These plans would include measures to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the erosion control measures throughout construction. With implementation of these license requirements and regulatory measures, the project’s impacts on soil erosion would be less than significant. 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?

The project proposed facilities would be founded on bedrock and minimal soil exists on site. The project area is located at the bottom of the narrow SFAR canyon and area soils are situated on bedrock; soils derived from bedrock have a low potential to liquefy (NRCS 2004). Furthermore, the confined nature of the project area and construction of the project on bedrock would negate the potential for lateral spreading or subsidence. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial risks to life or property?

No expansive soils exist on the project site, and proposed facilities would be founded on bedrock. As shown in Table 3.6-1, the soils in the project area have a NRCS plasticity index rating of 0 – 20 (NRCS 2015). These soils are considered a low risk for soil expansion (Sridharan and Prakash 2000). Therefore, the proposed project would not be located on any expansive soils, and the project would not result in substantial risks to people or property. The proposed project would have no impact related to expansive soils. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

The proposed project would be controlled remotely and would not have a continuous human presence. Although human occupation would occur for temporary operation and maintenance, no septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system construction would be required. In addition, the Iowa Canyon Creek reconfiguration would remove the only accumulation of soil of sufficient thickness and lateral extent to accommodate a septic system and leach field. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to soil suitability for use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

Page 73 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY

Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Environmental Setting

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) play a critical role in determining Earth’s surface temperature. A portion of the solar radiation that enters the atmosphere is absorbed by Earth’s surface, and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. Infrared radiation (thermal heat) is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere; as a result, infrared radiation released from Earth that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect.

GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, and formed from secondary chemical reactions in the atmosphere. GHG emissions associated with human activities are highly likely to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a warming trend in Earth’s atmosphere and oceans, with corresponding effects on global circulation patterns and climate (IPCC 2013).

Regulatory Setting

Federal

The EPA implements the CAA. On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the EPA must consider regulation of motor vehicle GHG emissions. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., 12 states and cities (including California), along with several environmental organizations, sued to require EPA to regulate GHGs as pollutants under the CAA (127 State Court 1438 [2007]). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs fit within the CAA definition of a pollutant, and that EPA had the authority to regulate GHGs.

State

The legal framework for GHG emission reductions has evolved through Executive Orders, legislation, and regulation. The major components of California’s climate change initiative are outlined below.

Page 74 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Assembly Bill 32

In 2006, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (California Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et seq.), also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act. Under AB 32, the ARB must design and implement feasible and cost-effective emissions limits, regulations, and other measures to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This legislation imposed a phased, enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions (i.e., cap-and-trade program) that started on January 1, 2012, with enforceable compliance obligation beginning with 2013 GHG emissions. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs ARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then ARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32.

Climate Change Scoping Plan

Pursuant to AB 32, ARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in December 2008, outlining measures to meet the 2020 GHG reduction goals. To meet these goals, California must reduce its GHG emissions by 30 percent below projected 2020 business- as-usual emissions levels, or about 15 percent of 2005 levels. The Scoping Plan recommends measures that are worth studying further, and that California may implement, such as new fuel regulations. It estimates that a reduction of about 191 million U.S. tons (174 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) from transportation, energy, agriculture, forestry, and other sources could be achieved if the state implements all of the measures. The Scoping Plan relies on the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 375 (discussed below) to achieve the carbon emission reductions that would be derived from land use decisions.

ARB is required to update the Scoping Plan at least once every 5 years, to evaluate progress and develop future inventories that may guide this process. The First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework was approved in June 2014 (ARB 2014b). The Scoping Plan update includes the status of the 2008 Scoping Plan measures and other federal, State, and local efforts to reduce GHG emissions in California from 2008 to 2013. The Scoping Plan Update determined that California is on schedule to achieve the 2020 target; however, an accelerated reduction in GHG emissions would be required to achieve the 2050 reduction target.

Senate Bill 97

Senate Bill (SB) 97, enacted in August 2007, recognizes climate change as a prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. On December 30, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, as required by SB 97. These State CEQA Guidelines amendments provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions. The amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.

Page 75 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Senate Bills 1078 and 107 and Executive Orders S-14-08 and S-21-09

SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) required retail sellers of electricity, including investor- owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006) changed the target date to 2010. In February 2014, the California Public Utilities Commission reported that California’s three largest investor-owned utilities (i.e., Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric) collectively provided 22.7 percent of their 2013 retail electricity sales using renewable sources and are continuing to progress toward 2020 requirements (CPUC 2014).

Executive Order S-14-08 expanded the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Executive Order S-21-09 directs ARB under its AB 32 authority to enact regulations to help California meet its Renewable Portfolio Standard goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020.

The 33 percent-by-2020 goal and requirements were codified in April 2011, by SB X1-2. This new Renewable Portfolio Standard applies to all electricity retailers in the state, including publicly owned utilities, investor-owned utilities, electricity service providers, and community choice aggregators. Consequently, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which would be the electricity provider for the proposed project, must meet the 33 percent goal by 2020. This would apply to any electricity used for project construction.

Regional and Local

El Dorado County Air Quality Management District

EDCAQMD regulates local air quality and air quality sources in the project area. EDCAQMD has developed the Guide to Air Quality Assessment to evaluate air quality impacts, pursuant to CEQA; however, the State CEQA Guidelines do not establish thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. Therefore, for this analysis, guidance from the neighboring SMAQMD was used to evaluate and determine the significance of GHG emissions. The SMAQMD has developed guidance on how to quantify GHG emissions from project construction and operation, and in November 2014, SMAQMD adopted quantitative GHG thresholds of significance (SMAQMD 2014b).

Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

During construction, GHG emissions would be generated from a variety of sources, including construction worker vehicles, heavy-duty construction equipment, haul trucks, other construction vehicles, and helicopters. The proposed project’s total estimated GHG emissions for construction are shown in Table 3.7-1. For a conservative analysis, the project’s total construction emissions over the 2.5-year construction period were compared with the surrogate SMAQMD construction threshold of significance, which is an annual threshold.

Page 76 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Table 3.7-1. Proposed Project Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Construction Phase MT CO2e Iowa Canyon Creek Reconfiguration 63 Road Improvements and Power Line 37 White Rock Tunnel and Adit Connection 43 Penstock and Boating Flow Valve 264 Powerhouse Construction 570 SFAR Habitat Improvement 12 SFAR Gravel Augmentation 15 Total Construction Emissions1 1,005 SMAQMD Construction Threshold (MT CO2e/yr) 1,100

Notes: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; SFAR = South Fork American River; SMAQMD = Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District; yr = year 1 Construction activities and emissions would occur over approximately 2.5 years. However, for a conservative analysis, total construction-related GHG emissions were compared with the surrogate SMAQMD GHG threshold of significance. Source: modeled by AECOM in 2015

As shown in Table 3.7-1, total construction emissions over the entire construction period were estimated to be approximately 1,005 metric tons (MT) of CO2e. Therefore, the total GHG emissions associated with construction would be less than the surrogate SMAQMD annual threshold of significance. Annualized construction emissions would be approximately 400 MT CO2e per year, which would be substantially less than the SMAQMD construction-related threshold of significance.

After construction, the proposed project’s operational emissions from maintenance would not result in a substantial incremental increase compared with current conditions. Rather, the proposed project would generate hydroelectric energy over its entire operating lifetime, which would provide renewable electricity to the regional grid. As discussed further below, adding renewable energy sources would be consistent with the goals and strategies of the AB 32 Scoping Plan to achieve GHG emission reduction goals. Thus, because the proposed project would not exceed the surrogate SMAQMD threshold of significance for construction and would not generate a substantial net increase in GHG emissions but instead would provide a renewable energy source, the proposed project’s impacts on GHG emissions would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Although the proposed project would generate temporary construction-related GHG emissions, the intent, purpose, and function of the proposed project aligns with the goals of the AB 32 Scoping Plan to reduce GHG emissions and the effects of climate change. Electrification of day- to-day operations in land use development projects, specifically in the building and transportation (i.e., electric vehicles, rail, buses, goods movement) sectors, has been identified

Page 77 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 as a key strategy in the AB 32 Scoping Plan to achieve GHG emissions reduction targets (ARB 2014b). Because electrification of more building and transportation sources would increase regional and statewide electricity demand, the AB 32 Scoping Plan cites the decarbonization of the electricity supply through renewable energy systems as an essential process to achieve GHG reductions. The proposed project would construct a hydroelectric powerhouse that would generate approximately 10.3 gigawatt-hours (GWh) per year. This would be consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan-related measures, such as the Renewable Portfolio Standard and investments in renewable energy. The proposed project would be a renewable and low-carbon electricity generator, would be consistent with the GHG reduction strategies of the AB 32 Scoping Plan, and would supplement the initiative to electrify more building and transportation sources. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts from conflicts with any applicable GHG plan.

With respect to CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F (Energy Conservation), the proposed project would be consistent with the prescribed methods to increase energy conservation. Although the proposed project would not affect residential or commercial energy consumption rates, it would provide a renewable electricity source that would decrease reliance on fossil fuels and would increase reliance on renewable energy sources. The 10.3 GWh of renewable energy would contribute to the overall electricity grid and would help reduce the average GHG emissions per unit of electricity provided. Thus, the proposed project would increase renewable energy systems and would have no impact on energy conservation.

Page 78 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.8 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 ¼ 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 §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two 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?

Environmental Setting

Results of Records Search for Hazardous Materials

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) EnviroStor geographic information system database (2015), California Environmental Protection Agency’s (CalEPA) Cortese List (2015), and SWRCB’s GeoTracker (2015) were searched to help identify any sites

Page 79 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 in or near the project area that were contaminated previously. These records did not identify any sites of concern in or within a 2-mile radius of the project area.

Wildfire Risk

Sections 4201–4204 of the Public Resources Code and Sections 51175–51189 of the Government Code require identification of fire hazard severity zones in California. CAL FIRE has established a fire hazard severity classification system. Fire prevention areas under State jurisdiction are referred to as State Responsibility Areas (SRAs). In SRAs, CAL FIRE is required to delineate three hazard ranges: moderate, high, and very high. Local Responsibility Areas, which are under the jurisdiction of local entities (e.g., cities, counties), are required only to identify very high fire hazard severity zones. The project area is within an SRA as identified by CAL FIRE and has been classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2007).

Regulatory Setting

Federal

Hazardous Materials Handling

The EPA is primarily responsible for enforcing and implementing federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. Applicable regulations are contained mainly in Titles 29, 40, and 49 of the CFR. Hazardous materials are defined in 49 CFR 172.101. Management of hazardous materials is governed by the following laws:

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA): The RCRA (42 USC 6901 et seq.) established an all-encompassing federal regulatory program for hazardous substances. Under the RCRA, EPA regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. The RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, which specifically prohibits the use of certain techniques to dispose of various hazardous substances. EPA has delegated many of the RCRA requirements to the DTSC.

• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA): CERCLA, also called the Superfund Act (42 USC 9601 et seq.), created a trust fund to provide broad federal authority for releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that could endanger public health or the environment.

• Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986: CERCLA created the Superfund hazardous substance cleanup program (Public Law 96-510, enacted December 11, 1980). The program subsequently was enlarged and reauthorized by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-499).

These laws and associated regulations include specific requirements for facilities that generate, use, store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous materials. EPA compiles the National Priorities List of sites with known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories. These locations are commonly

Page 80 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 referred to as Superfund sites. EPA provides oversight and supervision for federal Superfund investigation/remediation projects, evaluates remediation technologies, and develops hazardous materials disposal restrictions and treatment standards.

In addition, the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 imposes planning requirements for hazardous materials, to help protect local communities in the event of accidental release of hazardous substances. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor) regulates use and safety considerations related to blasting activities. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives of the U.S. Department of Justice regulates storage of explosives and blasting agents (27 CFR 55, “Commerce in Explosives”).

Worker Safety Requirements

OSHA is responsible at the federal level for ensuring worker safety. OSHA sets federal standards for workplace training, exposure limits, and safety procedures for handling hazardous substances and addressing other potential hazards. OSHA also establishes criteria by which each state can implement its own health and safety program.

State

Hazardous Materials Handling

The California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985 require preparation of hazardous materials business plans and disclosure of hazardous materials inventories. A business plan includes an inventory of hazardous materials handled, facility floor plans showing where hazardous materials are stored, an emergency response plan, and provisions for employee training in safety and emergency response procedures (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Article 1). The business plan program is administered by the California Emergency Management Agency. A business plan is required if a hazardous substance would be stored for more than 30 days in any of the following quantities:

• 500 gallons or more of any solid,

• 55 gallons or more of any liquid,

• 200 cubic feet or more of any compressed gas, or

• any acutely hazardous substance or radiological material that meets the federal threshold planning quantities listed in 40 CFR Part 355, Subpart A.

Cleanup of Contaminated Sites

Several state regulatory structures govern cleanup of contaminated sites in California. Many of these programs are regulated by DTSC: RCRA corrective actions, state Superfund sites, brownfields programs, and voluntary cleanups. The SWRCB (through RWQCBs and some local agencies) regulates releases with the potential to affect water resources under programs such as the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program and the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and

Page 81 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Cleanups Program. Regulatory authority for these programs may be delegated by the federal government (as with RCRA corrective actions directed by DTSC) or may be found in the California Health and Safety Code. The specifics of these regulations vary, but generally they require that sites where hazardous materials have been released are reported, investigated, and remediated, and that any hazardous materials are disposed of appropriately. These programs govern a range of pollutants, such as solvents, petroleum fuels, heavy metals, and pesticides in surface water, groundwater, soil, sediment, and air.

Worker Safety Requirements

The California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations in California. Cal/OSHA regulations pertaining to the use of hazardous materials in the workplace (CCR Title 8) include requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and preparation of emergency action and fire prevention plans. Cal/OSHA enforces hazard communication program regulations that contain training and information requirements. These requirements include procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, communicating hazard information related to hazardous substances and their handling, and preparing health and safety plans to protect workers and employees at hazardous waste sites. The hazard communication program requires that employers make material safety data sheets available to employees and document employee information and training programs.

Unified Program

CalEPA grants oversight and permitting responsibility to qualifying local agencies for certain state programs pertaining to hazardous waste and hazardous materials. This is achieved through the Unified Program, created by State Legislation in 1993 to consolidate, coordinate, and make consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for the following emergency and management plans and programs:

• Hazardous materials release response plans and inventories (business plans)

• California Accidental Release Prevention Program

• UST Program

• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Requirements for Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure plans

• Hazardous Waste Generator and On-site Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting) programs

• California Uniform Fire Code (hazardous material management plans and hazardous material inventory statements)

Page 82 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

California Accidental Release Prevention Program

The goal of the California Accidental Release Prevention Program, overseen by the California Emergency Management Agency, is to reduce the likelihood and severity of the consequences of releases of extremely hazardous materials. Any business that handles regulated substances is required to prepare a risk management plan. Regulated substances are chemicals that pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable, or explosive, such as ammonia, chlorine gas, hydrogen, nitric acid, and propane. A risk management plan is to be a detailed engineering analysis of the potential accident factors present at a business and the measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. The risk management plan must provide safety information, hazard data, operating procedures, and training and maintenance requirements.

Public Resources Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List)

The provisions of Section 65962.5 of the Public Resources Code are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List” (after the legislator who authored the legislation that enacted it). The Cortese List is a planning document used by State and local agencies to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Section 65962.5 requires Cal/EPA to develop an updated Cortese List annually, at minimum. DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional information about releases of hazardous materials for the Cortese List.

Wildland Fire Management

Several fire protection regulations are applicable to the proposed project and were outlined in detail in the SMUD’s 2008 UARP CEQA Supplemental Analysis. They fall under the jurisdiction of federal, State, and local agencies including the Eldorado National Forest (under USFS jurisdiction), CAL FIRE, and the El Dorado Fire Safe Council. Specific requirements overseen by these agencies include the following:

• Preparation and approval of a Fire Prevention and Response Plan for any activity that could potentially increase wildfire hazard, such as land clearing;

• Forest Practice Rules, as stated in the PRC; and

• Conversion Permits and Timber Harvesting Plans for clearing activities that take place on SMUD lands and other private lands.

The Office of the State Fire Marshal and CAL FIRE administer State policies regarding wildland fire safety including requirements in the Public Resources Code for construction at sites with forest-, brush-, or grass-covered land, and Public Resources Code provisions regarding clearance around transmission lines.

Page 83 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Local

El Dorado County Environmental Management Department, Hazardous Materials Division

The Hazardous Materials Division of the El Dorado County Environmental Management Department is the designated Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for El Dorado County. As the CUPA, the Hazardous Materials Division is responsible for implementing six statewide environmental programs for El Dorado County:

• Hazardous materials release response plans and inventories (business plans)

• California Accidental Release Prevention Program

• UST Program

• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Requirements for Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure plans

• Hazardous Waste Generator and On-site Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting) programs

• California Uniform Fire Code (hazardous material management plans and hazardous material inventory statements)

El Dorado County General Plan

The following policies from the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element of the El Dorado County General Plan (El Dorado County 2014) are applicable to the proposed project:

• Policy 6.2.3.2. As a requirement of new development, the applicant must demonstrate that adequate access exists, or can be provided to ensure that emergency vehicles can access the site and private vehicles can evacuate the area.

• Policy 6.6.1.1. The Hazardous Waste Management Plan shall serve as the implementation program for management of hazardous waste in order to protect the health, safety, property of residents and visitors, and to minimize environmental degradation while maintaining economic viability.

• Policy 6.6.1.2. Prior to the approval of any subdivision of land or issuing of a permit involving ground disturbance, a site investigation, performed by a Registered Environmental Assessor or other person experienced in identifying potential hazardous wastes, shall be submitted to the County for any subdivision or parcel that is located on a known or suspected contaminated site included in a list on file with the Environmental Management Department as provided by the State of California and federal agencies. If contamination is found to exist by the site investigations, it shall be corrected and

Page 84 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

remediated in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and standards prior to the issuance of a new land use entitlement or building permit.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Project construction would include the storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials (e.g., concrete, fuel, lubricants) for use with construction equipment on site. Project operation and maintenance would require the use of small quantities of fuel for vehicle access to and from the project area.

The California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are responsible for enforcing regulations related to the transportation of hazardous materials on local roadways. The use of these materials is regulated by DTSC, as outlined in CCR Title 22. SMUD and its construction contractors would comply with the CalEPA’s Unified Program. Regulated activities would be managed by the El Dorado County Department of Environmental Management, Hazardous Waste Division, which is the designated CUPA, and in accordance with the regulations included in the Unified Program (e.g., hazardous materials release response plans and inventories, California Uniform Fire Code hazardous material management plans and inventories). Such compliance would reduce the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials during construction and operation.

The proposed project would comply with existing hazardous material regulations. These regulations are specifically designed to protect public health through improved procedures for the handling of hazardous materials, better technology in the equipment used to transport these materials, and a more coordinated and rapid response to emergencies. In compliance with the 2015 FERC EA, SMUD would conduct a driver awareness program that would include regulatory requirements for transporting hazardous substances. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts from hazardous materials would be less than significant. 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?

As noted above, construction would require handling hazardous materials. Accidental spills or improper use, storage, transport, or disposal of these hazardous materials could result in a public hazard or the transport of hazardous materials (particularly during storm events) to the underlying soils and groundwater.

Although these hazardous materials could pose a hazard as described above, project construction would comply with extensive regulations so that significant risks would not result. Compliance with these regulations would include preparation of a hazardous materials business plan with a training program for employees, an inventory of hazardous materials, and an emergency plan (Cal OES 2015). All storage, handling, and disposal of these materials would be handled in accordance with regulations established by DTSC, EPA, OSHA, Cal OES, CUPA, and Cal/OSHA. As described in the 2015 FERC EA, SMUD would prepare an SWPPP that

Page 85 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 would include appropriate spill prevention measures and other BMPs, aimed at protecting water quality by managing hazardous substances during construction. Because of compliance with the applicable regulations as described above and implementation of the SWPPP and associated BMPs, no significant risks would occur for construction workers, the public, or the environment from through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

No schools exist or are proposed within 0.25 mile of the project area. Blair District School is the nearest school, approximately 2 miles south of the project area and more than a mile west of Camino. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to the emission of hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 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 §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

Based on a search of hazardous waste databases maintained by the SWRCB, DTSC, and EPA, the project area is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled under the requirements of the Cortese List. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact associated with creating a hazard to the public or environment. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; or 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?

The project area is not within the boundaries of an airport land use plan, within 2 miles of a public airport, or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on public airports or private airstrips. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

The potential impact on emergency response was addressed in the 2015 FERC EA, as well as in SMUD’s 2008 CEQA Supplemental Analysis. FERC found that no impact would occur on law enforcement and emergency response services in El Dorado County. In addition, SMUD found that after proposed improvements, Slab Creek Road would provide adequate passage for large emergency response vehicles. SMUD would prepare and implement a transportation management plan, to minimize the effects of construction traffic, would update the UARP Fire Management and Response Plan, and would prepare and implement a fire protection plan to minimize impacts from any unplanned evacuation resulting from wildfire.

Page 86 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Access to the project area would be primarily along North Canyon Road, Slab Creek Reservoir Road, and a gravel road currently used by SMUD to access Slab Creek Dam. At the terminus of Slab Creek Dam Road, the construction contractor would use existing paved and dirt roads, and the existing steel bridge to access construction areas, including Adit #3, areas adjacent to the river, and Iowa Canyon Creek. Because of space constraints in the project area, SMUD would establish off-site staging to accommodate construction worker parking and delivery and storage of materials and equipment. The staging area would be at the Sierra Pacific Lumber Mill in the town of Camino. Construction workers would park at the staging area and would be transported to the project area in groups via vanpool.

Construction-related traffic between the staging area and project area would be scheduled to minimize overlap with school bus traffic and children walking to and from bus stops. Construction worker arrivals would occur between 5:30 and 6:30 a.m., before the school bus pick-up times of 7 to 8 a.m. Most material deliveries would be scheduled between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. Construction workers would be transported back to the staging area between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m.

The construction contractor would install a new, pre-engineered, code-compliant bridge across Iowa Canyon Creek to replace the existing railcar that currently spans the creek. The contractor also would create a small parking area and turnaround at the west end of the new bridge, to accommodate SMUD maintenance vehicles and boaters accessing the whitewater boating put-in.

Because construction workers would be transported to the site in groups and the timing of construction worker arrival and material deliveries would avoid high traffic times of day, project construction would not interfere with or slow down emergency vehicles, or impede existing emergency services and plans. Therefore, with implementation of the UARP Fire Management and Response Plan, the impact would be less than significant.

After construction, very few vehicles would need to access the project area for operation and maintenance. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact on emergency planning would be less than significant. 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?

The project area is within the jurisdiction of the El Dorado County Fire Department; USFS, and CAL FIRE. The project area also is within a State Responsibility Area jurisdiction of CAL FIRE. Furthermore, the project area is characterized by mixed conifer forest with an abundance of forest fuels; CAL FIRE has identified the area as having Very High Hazard Fuels (CAL FIRE 2007). Nearby communities that would be at risk from fire would include the towns of Camino and Pollock Pines. The nearest residences are between the project site and Camino. Larger neighborhoods associated with Camino are approximately 2 miles to the south, and Pollock Pines is approximately 4 miles to the southeast. Pollock Pines is listed in the Federal Register (2001) as an Urban Wildland Interface Community within the Vicinity of Federal Lands that are at High Risk from Wildfire. Project construction, operation, and maintenance, including site clearing, the use of mechanical equipment, and storage and handling of explosive and/or

Page 87 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 flammable materials, potentially could expose people and structures to a risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from wildland fire.

Potential impacts resulting from wildland fires are addressed in the 2015 FERC EA, as well as in the 2008 FERC/USFS FEIS and SMUD’s 2008 CEQA Supplemental Analysis. SMUD and FERC analyzed fire risk (i.e., the probability of a fire starting within a given area) and fire threat (i.e., the probability of a fire spreading from a fire start, based on land use practices [e.g., brush clearing] related to fuel loading). The EA, EIS, and supplemental CEQA documents found that, although fire risk and threat are high because of the nature of the existing conditions in the project area, the potential impacts associated with wildland fire hazards would be addressed by implementation of BMPs and the fire management plans.

As described in detail in the 2008 CEQA Supplemental Analysis, the construction plan would include a fire prevention component consistent with all federal, State, and local regulations and the California Forest Practice Rules to reduce fire hazards and the USFS Project Activity Level (PAL) system to incorporate specific criteria related to fire threat. During construction, SMUD also would implement the following measures to reduce fire risk:

1. Protective measures when operating mechanical equipment on site and while driving to and from the project area;

2. Protective measures for the storage and handling of explosive and/or flammable materials;

3. Protective measures for construction site firefighting;

4. Fire safety awareness training as part of the employee environmental awareness program;

5. Emergency procedures, including notification and evacuation procedures and routes;

6. Prohibitions against smoking outside designated areas; and

7. Implementation of an on-site water supply system to stop fires from spreading.

After construction, SMUD would modify the UARP Fire Prevention and Response Plan to incorporate the proposed project, ensuring compliance with the Forest Practice Rules during project operation and maintenance.

Overall, the proposed project would minimize impacts associated with wildland fire hazards by implementing regulatory measures and BMPs, including the California Forest Practice Rules, USFS PAL system, and a fire prevention and response plan. Thus, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including locations where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on wildland fire hazards would be less than significant.

Page 88 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.9 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 a 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 which 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 which 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 the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Page 89 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Environmental Setting

Surface Water Hydrology

The 2015 FERC EA describes existing hydrologic conditions. The drainage area of Slab Creek Reservoir is approximately 493 square miles, with the highest flows of 1,000 to 3,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) occurring during spring snowmelt. The reservoir’s capacity is 16,600 acre-feet of water at elevation 1,850 feet, and it is used to regulate flows from upstream power generating facilities and as a stored source of water for the downstream White Rock Powerhouse. Under the UARP FERC license, the minimum flows in the SFAR downstream from Slab Creek Dam would increase from 36 cfs (or lower during dry years) to the new minimum flows outlined in the UARP relicensing Settlement Agreement, which would be closer to normal seasonal flows— 63 cfs in summers of dry years to springtime highs of 263 cfs in wet years, with springtime releases in license year 4 increasing to 415 cfs.

The new license does not affect high flows, which would spill over the dam as they have historically. However, new boating flow releases would enter the river at the new boating flow release facility. Periodically, SMUD would release water over the dam spillway and through the river reach immediately downstream from the dam, with flows ranging from 850 to 1,500 cfs. For the first 15 years of the new license, boating flows would occur over three springtime weekends (under the water conditions described in the license).

Because the project area is within a steep canyon and flows are regulated for power generation by several upstream dams, including Slab Creek Dam, the potential for flooding is limited.

Surface Water Quality

Water temperature is a critical water quality standard in the SFAR for anadromous fish populations. As described in the 2015 FERC EA, water temperatures in the SFAR directly downstream from Slab Creek Dam are cold throughout the year because the water is released from the hypolimnion (deep portion) of Slab Creek Reservoir. SMUD’s water quality monitoring data for this reach of SFAR show that water temperatures range between 3 and 16 degrees Celsius. Temperature measurements in Iowa Canyon Creek in 2010 were within the same range as the SFAR.

SMUD conducted water quality monitoring for heavy metals in 1992, and during the FERC relicensing process (2002–2004) for metals, organic compounds (e.g., petroleum hydrocarbons) and physical parameters (e.g., dissolved oxygen, pH). These studies documented that the water was well oxygenated and most concentrations of other pollutants were below detection limits.

A large mound of debris from the original dam construction is within the lower channel and mouth of Iowa Canyon Creek. During high river flows, this mound of material may erode and degrade downstream water quality.

Page 90 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Regulatory Setting

Federal

Federal Power Act (16 USC Sections 797(e) and 808 (2012)

SMUD is subject to the conditions outlined in its FERC license and the Settlement Agreement (filed by SMUD and Pacific Gas and Electric Company), related to relicensing the UARP and Chili Bar Projects. The license outlines minimum river flows, pulse flows, ramping rates, recreational flows, and water flow and quality monitoring programs. It also outlines license conditions SMUD must comply with, including conditions for water releases and water quality, and the need to obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the SWRCB. The FERC license attaches the final WQC and USFS final Section 4(e) conditions, including development of a whitewater boating recreation plan for the SFAR below Slab Creek Dam and water quality monitoring of those uses.

Clean Water Act

Water quality objectives for all waters of the United States are established under applicable provisions of Section 303 of the CWA. Under Section 303(d), states are required to identify water bodies that would not attain water quality objectives after implementation of required levels of treatment by point-source dischargers (i.e., municipalities and industries), and to develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for each pollutant (i.e., the amount of loading that the water body can receive and still comply with water quality objectives). The only pollutant in the SFAR that requires a TMDL is mercury; however, the primary source of mercury is historical mine tailings, which are being addressed as part of a statewide TMDL.

The CWA encompasses the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters, including point sources and nonpoint sources, such as stormwater. The goal of NPDES stormwater regulations is to improve the quality of stormwater discharged to receiving waters to the “maximum extent practicable” through the use of structural and nonstructural BMPs.

Section 401 of the CWA assigns administration of California waters to the State of California, and the SWRCB has certified that the UARP would not violate water quality standards. For the proposed project, SMUD would apply to the SWRCB for an amendment to the UARP Section 401 Water Quality Certification as part of the license amendment process.

State

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) requires the SWRCB and RWQCBs to develop water quality policies, plans, and objectives to protect state waters, and requires the RWQCBs to periodically update water quality control plans (basin plans) to define beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and implement water quality programs. The proposed project is within the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin.

Page 91 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

The Porter-Cologne Act also requires dischargers to notify the RWQCB by filing a report of waste discharge and authorizes the SWRCB and RWQCBs to issue and enforce waste discharge requirements (WDRs), NPDES permits, Section 401 water quality certifications, and other approvals. The RWQCBs also issue WDRs for broad categories of “low threat” discharges that have minimal potential for adverse water quality effects when implemented according to prescribed terms and conditions.

On September 2, 2009, the SWRCB approved a new Construction General Permit (Order 2009- 0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ) to cover ground-disturbing activities (e.g., clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavating) that would disturb 1 acre or more. The proposed project would submit a notice of intent (i.e., permit application) to the Central Valley RWQCB, and would prepare and implement an SWPPP, including construction and post- construction BMPs. All NPDES permits also have inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements. In response to a court decision, the Central Valley RWQCB also has implemented mandatory water quality sampling requirements (Resolution 2001-046) for visible and nonvisible contaminants in construction discharges. SMUD would submit a notice of intent for the proposed project.

Construction projects that involve excavation below the water table may require dewatering. The Central Valley RWQCB has adopted a general NPDES permit for short-term discharges of small volumes of water from construction-related excavation. These discharges are specified in the General Order for Dewatering and Other Low-Threat Discharges to Surface Waters (General Dewatering Permit), adopted on May 31, 2013 (Order No. 5-00-175, NPDES No. CAG995001). To qualify as low threat, the discharge must have a duration of 4 months or less, and the average dry-weather discharge must not exceed 0.25 million gallons per day. The General Dewatering Permit also specifies standards for testing, monitoring, and reporting, receiving- water limitations, and discharge prohibitions. Projects that do not quality as low threat require a project-specific permit. SMUD would apply for a construction dewatering permit for the foundation of the new powerhouse.

Local

El Dorado County General Plan

The proposed project would be subject to the El Dorado County General Plan (2014) elements for Public Health, Safety, and Noise; Conservation and Open Space; and Parks and Recreation. These elements contain goals, objectives, and policies that relate to water resources. The public safety objective (under 6.4.1) to minimize loss of life and property by regulating development in areas subject to flooding in accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency guidelines, California law, and the El Dorado County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance was also reviewed. It was determined that this objective does not apply because the proposed project would not place high occupancy structures (e.g., schools, hospitals) in the 100-year storm event floodplain, create new parcels that would lie entirely within the 100-year storm event floodplain, or create new parcels partially within the 100-year storm event floodplain or dam failure inundation areas, as delineated in dam failure emergency response plans.

Page 92 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element

Goal 6.4 Flood Hazards. Protect the residents of El Dorado County from flood hazards.

• Objective 6.4.2 Dam Failure Inundation. Protect life and property of County residents below dams.

. Policy 6.4.2.1 Apply a zoning overlay for areas located within dam failure inundation zones as identified by the State Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams.

. Policy 6.4.2.2 No new critical or high occupancy structures (e.g., schools, hospitals) should be located within the inundation area resulting from failure of dams identified by the State Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams.

Conservation and Open Space Element

Goal 7.3 Water Quality and Quantity. Conserve, enhance, and manage water resources and protect their quality from degradation.

• Objective 7.3.1 Water Resource Projection. Preserve and protect the supply and quality of the County’s water resources including the protection of critical watersheds, riparian zones, and aquifers.

. Policy 7.3.1.1 Encourage the use of Best Management Practices, as identified by the Soil Conservation Service, in watershed lands as a means to prevent erosion, siltation, and flooding.

. Policy 7.3.1.2 Establish water conservation programs that include both drought tolerant landscaping and efficient building design requirements as well as incentives for the conservation and wise use of water.

. Policy 7.3.1.3 The County shall develop the criteria and draft an ordinance to allow and encourage the use of domestic gray water for landscape irrigation purposes. (See Title 22 of the State Water Code and the Graywater Regulations of the Uniform Plumbing Code).

• Objective 7.3.2 Water Quality. Maintenance of and, where possible, improvement of the quality of underground and surface water.

. Policy 7.3.2.1 Stream and lake embankments shall be protected from erosion, and streams and lakes shall be protected from excessive turbidity.

. Policy 7.3.2.2 Projects requiring a grading permit shall have an erosion control program approved, where necessary.

Page 93 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

. Policy 7.3.2.3 Where practical and when warranted by the size of the project, parking lot storm drainage shall include facilities to separate oils and salts from storm water in accordance with the recommendations of the Storm Water Quality Task Force’s California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbooks (1993).

. Policy 7.3.2.4 The County should evaluate feasible alternatives to the use of salt for ice control on County roads.

. Policy 7.3.2.5 As a means to improve the water quality affecting the County’s recreational waters, enhanced and increased detailed analytical water quality studies and monitoring should be implemented to identify and reduce point and non-point pollutants and contaminants. Where such studies or monitoring reports have identified sources of pollution, the County shall propose means to prevent, control, or treat identified pollutants and contaminants.

• Objective 7.3.4 Drainage. Protection and utilization of natural drainage patterns.

. Policy 7.3.4.1 Natural watercourses shall be integrated into new development in such a way that they enhance the aesthetic and natural character of the site without disturbance.

. Policy 7.3.4.2 Modification of natural stream beds and flow shall be regulated to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are utilized.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Project construction would require excavation and grading in areas directly adjacent to the SFAR and within Iowa Canyon Creek, and potentially could have impacts on water quality. Excavation of the new powerhouse foundation and construction of the retaining walls could require dewatering and discharge to the SFAR. Habitat improvement measures would require removing boulders, gravel, soil, and concrete slabs within and adjacent to Iowa Canyon Creek, and placing gravel and removing boulders within the SFAR.

The 2015 FERC EA addresses potential water quality impacts. Water quality modeling demonstrated that the proposed project’s impacts on water temperature would be low, and the increase in water temperature would be 1.56°C at the lowest river flows and would range up to approximately 15.4°C (within the optimal range for resident salmonid fish). The EA also finds that other impacts on water quality would be temporary and would be addressed by BMPs for erosion control, stormwater, and equipment refueling.

Pursuant to FERC license requirements, SMUD would prepare and implement an erosion and sedimentation control plan. In addition, in compliance with California stormwater regulations, SMUD would prepare and implement a SWPPP that would require BMPs during and after construction, including revegetation of disturbed areas using a native grass and/or forb seed mix.

Page 94 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

To minimize impacts on water quality from construction adjacent to the SFAR, SMUD would install a temporary cofferdam having rubber water-filled bladders (Figure 2-4) along the southern shoreline of the SFAR, to isolate the new powerhouse and boating flow-release valve construction area. SFAR waters would flow around the cofferdam, avoiding erosion of newly constructed embankments. The cofferdam would be installed during low flow and would be removed before the start of winter storms.

Construction of the new powerhouse and boating flow facility would have a low potential to result in erosion and turbidity. Construction of the penstock would occur within Adit #3, which is an area not subject to the elements. Much of the construction of the new powerhouse and boating flow release structure would occur on bedrock. The new power line would be constructed in upland areas located away from the river.

During excavation of the new powerhouse foundation, turbid water that enters the excavation would be managed according to project permit requirements before returning the water to the SFAR. For excavation dewatering, SMUD would obtain an NPDES permit (i.e., WDR) from the Central Valley RWQCB to discharge the water. In addition, because excavation and fill would occur within waters of the State and waters of the U.S., SMUD would obtain a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, would comply with the UARP Section 401 Water Quality Certification (as amended for the proposed project), and would obtain a CDFW Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement. For example, in compliance with Condition 14 of the UARP Section 401 Water Quality Certification, SMUD would prepare and implement a transportation management plan that would identify measures to control erosion.

The proposed project would not violate WDRs. SMUD is subject to WDRs for other portion of the UARP, including the geotechnical investigation required for design of the proposed upstream Iowa Hill Pumped Storage Project. However, the proposed project would not violate those WDRs or restrict access to the old construction road to the dam, which would need to be watered for dust control during the geotechnical investigation, per the Iowa Hill project WDRs.

The proposed project’s environmental restoration measures would have the potential for short- term water quality impacts followed by long-term beneficial impacts. SMUD would remove debris, soil, and rock, deposited at the mouth of Iowa Canyon Creek. Removal of this mound would be a potential source of erosion; however, SMUD would conduct the removal during low river flows and would apply stormwater BMPs to minimize erosion. In the long term, removal of this debris would remove a potential source of turbidity during high river flows and would result in a beneficial impact.

The other two environmental restoration activities—moving boulders from the riffle downstream from the dam to create a low flow channel in the ¼ mile of SFAR below Slab Creek Dam and placing gravel to enhance fish habitat—would not disturb fine-grained material, and the potential for impacts on water quality from them would be minimal. As described in the 2015 FERC EA, the SFAR and Iowa Canyon Creek are both upper perennial riverine channels with rocky bottoms. Environmental restoration activities would have only temporary, localized impacts on water quality resulting from operation of the small equipment that would be used to move boulders and small dump trucks that would be used to deposit gravel.

Page 95 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

During operation, water used to generate power would be released from the new powerhouse via a concrete baffle that would reduce water velocity and minimize scouring of the river bed. Similarly, boating releases would flow across baffles to reduce water velocity for the safety of boaters, minimizing potential impacts on water quality. The 2008 FERC/USFS FEIS addressed the impacts of recreational use on water quality during boating releases. To address potential impacts, in compliance with FERC’s new UARP license conditions, SMUD would prepare a recreation management plan addressing sanitation needs, including in the reach below Slab Creek Dam (EIS Section 3.3.2.2). Moreover, SMUD committed to environmental measures under the 2007 Settlement Agreement with PG&E, including water quality monitoring and water temperature measurements throughout the UARP area, until SMUD demonstrates that the area complies with water quality standards for "cold freshwater" beneficial uses (FERC and USFS 2008).

Overall, the proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts on water quality because it would be constructed on bedrock in an area with little soil. Operations would minimize water quality impacts by releasing power generating flows and boating flows through concrete structures what would prevent river bottom scour. SMUD would implement regulatory measures such as the SWPPP, SMUD’s programmatic Spill Prevention and Control Plan, the FERC- required Erosion Control Plan, and the SWRCB-required Recreation Management Plan. SMUD also would obtain coverage under WDRs for dewatering (Order No. R5-2008-0081/NPDES Permit No. CAG995001, as superseded by Order R5-2013-0074, and newly adopted orders thereto). Furthermore, after construction, SMUD would revegetate disturbed areas in compliance with USFS guidelines and would employ operational stormwater and spill prevention BMPs. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on water quality, water quality standards, and waste discharge restrictions, would be less than significant. 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)?

SMUD would not install groundwater extraction wells or otherwise use groundwater for project construction or operation. The proposed project would not introduce substantial impervious surfaces that would interfere with groundwater recharge. The areas of the new powerhouse, boating flow release valve vault, and parking spaces would be very small—several thousand square feet—in an area characterized by major rivers and reservoirs. Any introduction of impervious surface would be offset by the restoration of the mouth of Iowa Canyon Creek. Removing the mound of debris, boulders, and soil would restore the stream to a more natural channel configuration with adjacent benched areas that would allow the creek to overflow its banks, contributing to the groundwater recharges. Furthermore, the project area is not densely populated, and no developments are planned in the area. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on groundwater supplies would be less than significant. 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?

Page 96 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

SMUD would not alter the drainage patterns of the project area. The project area is in a steep rock canyon where all drainage flows to the SFAR or its tributaries. The new powerhouse and boating flow release valve vault would result in only localized redirection of flows that then would flow down the river bank to the river. Short- and long-term erosion issues would be addressed by erosion control BMPs. Removal of the mound at the mouth of Iowa Canyon Creek would have potential short-term erosion effects that would be addressed by BMPs; however, this would not change the creek’s course. Restoring the stream bed and banks to a more natural condition would result in a long-term reduction in erosion by eliminating a source of erosion and providing an area for the creek to overflow and drop its sediment load rather than conveying sediments to the SFAR and downstream depositional areas.

The proposed project would temporarily alter flows in the SFAR during construction, when the cofferdam is in place. However, the cofferdam would not divert water out of the river channel or substantially increase water velocity. Construction would be conducted in summer, when water releases from Slab Creek Dam and resulting flow in SFAR are at their lowest level. Furthermore, the riverbed consists of bedrock and boulders, and the potential for erosion is inherently low. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on drainage patterns and resulting erosion would be less than significant. 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 which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

As described under c), the proposed project would not alter site drainage patterns or change the course of a stream or river. All drainage and river flows would be confined within a steep canyon. Furthermore, as described in the 2015 FERC EA and 2008 FERC/USFS FEIS, flows downstream from the new powerhouse and boating flow release valve would be unchanged from existing conditions and flows immediately downstream from the dam would be reduced. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in flooding on or offsite. River flows in the area are controlled by the UARP FERC license, and all flows occur within a steep canyon that is not prone to flooding.

Removal of the mound at the mouth of Iowa Canyon Creek would not change its course. Restoring the stream bed and banks to a more natural condition would aid with flood water retention because its design would provide an area for the creek to overflow. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an impact on existing drainage patterns, and any flooding- related impacts would be less than significant. 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?

The project area is undeveloped with the exception of SMUD UARP hydroelectric facilities; therefore, no drainage systems exist in the project area and vicinity. Stormwater runoff from the project area and proposed structures would flow overland to the SFAR or Iowa Canyon Creek. The only runoff from the project area would be from the small additional structures and the yard that would connect the powerhouse, boating flow release valve, and Adit #3, and no additional

Page 97 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 sources of polluted runoff would result. Therefore, the runoff would not exceed the capacity of the drainage system or generate an additional source of polluted runoff. The impact on drainage systems would be less than significant. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

The proposed project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Because the proposed project would be limited to generating hydroelectric power and releasing flows for boating, it would not introduce any other short- or long-term potential pollutant sources or discharges, such as disposal areas or discharges. Therefore, the impact on water quality would be less than significant. 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?

The proposed project would not place any housing. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to placing housing within a 100-year storm event flood hazard area. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

The proposed project would place a new powerhouse and boating flow release valve within the 100-year storm event floodplain. However, river flows adjacent to the project area occur within a steep canyon and would not impede or redirect flows because no alternate flow path exists. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to 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 the failure of a levee or dam?

The proposed project would not include placement of housing or other occupied structures. As described in the 2015 FERC EA, the probability of a flood event is small and the project area is a deeply incised canyon with stable bedrock. In addition, neither the new powerhouse nor boating flow release facility would be occupied, and the potential for flood damage would be minimized by their design. Like other UARP facilities, the new powerhouse roof elevation has been designed to sustain a 100-year storm event flood, thereby minimizing the potential for flood waters to damage the new powerhouse. In addition, both facilities would be automated and would be unoccupied except for occasional maintenance.

The proposed project would not increase the potential for dam or levee failure. Because SMUD adheres to federal and State dam safety and structural requirements, the likelihood of dam failure would be extremely remote. The El Dorado County General Plan’s Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element (2014), pursuant to California Government Code Section 65302 and other applicable sections, requires communities to identify “any reasonable risk associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiches, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides, subsidence and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body; flooding; and wildland and urban fires.” The

Page 98 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

El Dorado County General Plan does not identify the project area as such an area. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts would be less than significant. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

The project area is not within a locale subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. As described previously, the El Dorado County General Plan has not identified the project area as an area subject to such hazards. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

Page 99 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.10 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?

Environmental Setting

Area land uses are described in SMUD’s license amendment application and the 2015 FERC EA. The project area is on lands administered by SMUD, adjacent to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), USFS, and private property within the jurisdiction of El Dorado County. Land uses in the project and immediately adjacent areas include hydroelectric generation and dispersed recreation. The generally rugged topography of the area has resulted in undeveloped open space that is covered predominantly by conifers and oak trees. Residential properties are further north and south of the project area, away from the SFAR along the canyon rims.

According to the El Dorado County zoning map (Slate Mountain), the south side of the SFAR is zoned for Residential Agriculture (40 acres). Lands below Slab Creek Dam north of the SFAR is zoned “Unclassifiable” (El Dorado County 2009).

Regulatory Setting

The regulatory setting is discussed further in the 2008 FERC/USFS FEIS. USFS lands are managed in accordance with the ENF Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 1988). The ENF amended its Management Plan in 2001 and 2004. BLM lands are subject to the Federal Land Policy and Land Management Act, and the management plan published in 2004 is specific to the SFAR. Lands in El Dorado County are subject to the policies detailed in the El Dorado County General Plan, River Management Plan (RMP) (i.e., the project area outside the RMP planning area), Trails Master Plan, and Water Agency Water Resource Development and Management Plan.

Page 100 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Physically divide an established community?

The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The project area is not within a defined community or immediately adjacent to any residential properties. Furthermore, the project area is in a remote, difficult to access location, and most of the proposed project components would be at the bottom of the canyon along the SFAR. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on 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?

The project area is on SMUD lands. Adjacent El Dorado County lands are designated for Residential Agriculture (40 acres). The proposed project would not conflict with a local land use plan, the ENF Management Plan (USFS 1988), the BLM Management Plan (2004), or policies of the El Dorado County General Plan (2004), the El Dorado County Parks and Trails Master Plan (2012), or the El Dorado County Water Agency Water Resource Development and Management Plan–West Slope Update (2014). The proposed project would not affect the goals and policies set forth in the El Dorado County Parks and Trails Master Plan (2012), and it would not conflict with the water management objectives set forth in the El Dorado County Water Agency’s Water Resource Development and Management Plan–West Slope Update (2014). The project area is not identified within the El Dorado County General Plan as a potentially visually sensitive area that falls under the umbrella of the County’s proposed scenic corridor ordinance.

As described 2015 FERC EA, the proposed project would include clearing vegetation for power line construction within an established right-of-way (ROW) on USFS lands. USFS has authorized SMUD to use ENF-approved herbicides in addition to mechanical treatment within the ROW on USFS lands. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on applicable land use, policy, or regulation would be less than significant. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

The project area is not covered by a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on any existing habitat or natural community conservation plans.

Page 101 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES

Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future 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?

Environmental Setting

The environmental setting for mineral resources is discussed in the 2015 FERC EA. The project area is in El Dorado County. Gold mining was prevalent throughout El Dorado County during much of the nineteenth century. The county lies on a rich vein of ore that extends through several counties on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Other mineral products in the region include large deposits of slate, granite, lime, asbestos, and building stones.

Regulatory Setting

Mineral Resource Zones

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (PRC Section 2710 et seq.) (SMARA) addresses surface mining of minerals and requires the prevention of adverse mining impacts, reclamation of mined lands, and the elimination of hazards to public health and safety. SMARA requires classification and designation of land containing valuable mineral resources in Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs). The State Mining and Geology Board may designate certain mineral deposits as regionally significant to satisfy future needs. Sections 2761 (a) and (b) and 2790 provide a framework for the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) and the State Mining and Geology Board to classify areas that contain valuable geologic deposits and thereby limit new development in those areas. The classification process does not consider existing land use or land ownership. It ensures that local governments recognize the mineral potential of the land before making land use decisions that may preclude mining.

Aggregate Resource Areas

The California Geological Survey has the primary responsibility under the provisions of the SMARA to identify aggregate resource areas (ARAs). The report, OFR 2000-03: Mineral Land Classification of El Dorado County, California (CDMG 2003) includes information on the process for designating ARAs. Approximately 413 acres of El Dorado County in 10 ARAs have been classified as MRZs for concrete aggregate.

Page 102 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State; or 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?

The El Dorado County General Plan (2004) indicates there are no important mineral resources near Slab Creek Dam or in the project area. The proposed project would not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource. Furthermore, the project area is not located within a designated MRZ or ARA. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on mineral resources.

Page 103 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.12 NOISE

Would the project:

a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or 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 or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing in 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 in or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Environmental Setting

This section describes existing noise conditions and noise sources. Appendix C presents noise, sound, and acoustics information and the terminology used throughout this section.

Existing Noise Conditions

The project area is adjacent to the SFAR about 3 miles north of the town of Camino in El Dorado County. Land uses adjacent to the project area consist of rural residential land uses.

Sensitive Land Uses

Noise-sensitive land uses in the project vicinity are limited to scattered rural residences north and south of the project area. The closest residences are along White Oak Drive, approximately 2,200 feet north of the project area, and along Slab Creek Reservoir Road, approximately 2,300 feet south of the project area. The structures closest to the project construction (Slab

Page 104 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Creek Dam) that would be evaluated for structural damage from vibration would be approximately 1,000 feet from the primary construction site, to the east.

Existing Noise Sources

The existing noise environment near the project area is influenced primarily by water flows in the river, occasional recreational use, SMUD maintenance workers, and distant vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways. Other sources of noise in the project vicinity include activities associated with boating and the existing powerhouse/pump. The existing noise environment near the project area also is influenced by natural sources (e.g., wind and birds).

Ambient Noise Level Surveys

Because of the rural/agricultural nature of land in the project vicinity, ambient noise levels are expected to be quite low—at or below 50 energy-equivalent noise level A-weighted decibels (dBA Leq [energy-equivalent noise level]), 45 dBA Leq, and 40 dBA Leq during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours, respectively. This assumption also conforms with the ambient noise levels measured in 2004, during UARP/Iowa Hill relicensing near existing noise-sensitive uses in the project area that were between 31 and 52 dBA (CH2M HILL 2008).

Roadway Traffic Noise

In addition to ambient noise measurements, existing traffic noise on the roadways in the project vicinity was estimated based on existing traffic volumes (using recent daily traffic volumes in Google Earth). Potential haul routes for the proposed project were assumed to be U.S. Route 50 (US 50) to Carson Road, then vehicles would continue to the staging area at the northwestern corner of Carson Road and Larsen Road, or they would continue north on Larsen Road to its intersection with North Canyon Road. Vehicles would continue west on North Canyon Road to Slab Creek Reservoir Road. Vehicles would continue north on Slab Creek Reservoir Road to the project site. Existing traffic noise on roadways in the project vicinity were estimated for slightly noisier environments, such as roadways from US 50 to staging area, and less noisy environments like roadways from the staging area to the project area. Table 3.12-1 shows the modeled traffic noise levels 50 feet from the centerline of roadways near the project area. Existing traffic noise levels along roadways in the project vicinity or those roadways that would be used by project haul trucks range from 47 decibels (dB) Leq to 58 dB Leq at 50 feet from the centerlines of the modeled roadways.2

2 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), combined with the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels, was used to predict existing traffic noise levels in the project area. The FHWA model is the traffic noise prediction model currently preferred by FHWA, Caltrans, and county and city governments for assessing traffic noise.

Page 105 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Table 3.12-1. Existing Traffic Volumes, and Traffic Noise (dB)

Existing Peak Hour Volumes Existing Traffic Noise Area Speed ADT (vph) Level dB, Leq at 50 feet From U.S. Route 50 to Staging Area 22001 220 30 58 From Staging Area to Project Area 200* 20 35 47

Notes: ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volumes; dB = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level; vph = vehicles per hour 1 Average of traffic volumes along the roadway, shown in Google Earth. 2 Assumed volumes. Source: Modeling conducted by AECOM in 2015

Regulatory Setting

Federal

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA’s Office of Noise Abatement and Control was established to coordinate federal noise control activities. The Office of Noise Abatement and Control subsequently established programs and guidelines in response to the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972 to identify and address the effects of noise on public health and welfare, and the environment. Table 3.12-2 summarizes EPA’s recommended guidelines for noise levels considered safe for community exposure (EPA 1974:3). The yearly average Leq equivalent noise level; see the “Environmental Setting” subsection below, for a person seeking to avoid hearing loss over his or her lifetime should not exceed 70 dB. To minimize interference and annoyance, noise levels should not exceed 55 dB day-night average level (Ldn) at outdoor activity areas and 45 dB Ldn within residential structures (see Appendix C for noise information and terminology).

Table 3.12-2. Summary of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Recommended Noise Level Standards

Effect Sound Level Area

Hearing loss Leq(24) ≤ 70 dB All areas. Outdoor areas of residences and farms, and other areas where people L ≤ 55 dB Interference with and dn spend widely varying amounts of time or where quiet is a basis for use. annoyance during outdoor Outdoor areas where people spend limited amounts of time, such as activities L ≤ 55 dB eq(24) school yards and playgrounds.

Interference with and Ldn ≤ 45 dB Indoor residential areas. annoyance during indoor activities Leq(24) ≤ 45 dB Other indoor areas with human activities, such as schools.

Notes: dB = decibels; Ldn = day-night average level Leq(24) = equivalent noise level (the sound energy averaged over a 24-hour period) Source: EPA 1974:3

Page 106 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

EPA administrators determined in 1981 that subjective issues such as noise would be better addressed at lower levels of government. Consequently, in 1982, responsibilities for regulating noise control policies were transferred to state and local governments. However, the designated federal agencies still uphold noise control guidelines and regulations contained in the rulings made by EPA in prior years, allowing for more individualized control on specific issues by designated federal, state, and local government agencies.

Federal Transit Administration

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed guidelines for assessing the significance of vibration produced by transportation sources and construction activity (Table 3.12-3). To address human response (annoyance) to groundborne vibration, FTA has established maximum acceptable vibration thresholds for different land uses. These guidelines recommend 65 vibration decibels (VdB) for land uses where low ambient vibration is essential for interior operations (e.g., hospitals, high-tech manufacturing, and laboratory facilities), 80 VdB for residential uses and buildings where people normally sleep, and 83 VdB for institutional land uses with primarily daytime operations (e.g., schools, places of worship, clinics, and offices). These levels are calculated based on the measured root-mean-square (RMS) velocity amplitude relative to a reference velocity amplitude of 1 micro inch per second (FTA 2006:8-3).

Table 3.12-3. Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment

Impact Levels (VdB relative to 1 microinch/second)1 Land Use Category Frequent Occasional Infrequent Events Events Events Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior 2 65 65 65 operations

Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep 72 75 80 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime uses 75 78 83 Notes: VdB = vibration decibels 1 Impact levels are defined as follows: Frequent events—more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day Occasional events—30–70 vibration events of the same source per day Infrequent events—fewer than 30 vibration events of the same source per day 2 This criterion is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, such as optical microscopes. Source: FTA 2006

FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment provides criteria for groundborne vibration impacts with respect to building damage during construction (FTA 2006). Guideline vibration damage criteria are shown in Table 3.12-4 for various structural categories. According to FTA guidelines, a vibration-damage criterion of 0.20 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) should be considered for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. Furthermore, structures or buildings constructed of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber have a vibration-damage criterion of 0.50 in/sec PPV, pursuant to the FTA guidelines.

Page 107 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Table 3.12-4. Construction Vibration Damage Criteria

Building Category PPV (in/sec) Approximate (VdB) I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90

Notes: PPV = peak particle velocity; VdB = vibration decibels Source: FTA 2006

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Table 3.12-5 shows the maximum allowable ground vibration levels as a function of distance from the blasting area, as set forth by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM). The vibration limits apply to blasting under OSM jurisdiction and address impacts on any dwelling, public building, school, church, or community or institutional building. With respect to human annoyance from ground vibration (generated by blasting activities), the OSM Guidance Manual concludes that complaints can be expected at 0.25 inch/second (ground-borne vibration), a level that is eminently safe.

Table 3.12-5. OSM Blasting Vibration Limits for Building Damage1

Distance from Blasting Site to nearest Maximum Allowable Peak Particle Velocity for Ground Vibration Receptor, feet Vibration at a Given Distance,2 inch/second 0 to 300 1.25 301 to 5,000 1.00 5,001 and beyond 0.75

Notes: OSM = Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 1 These vibration limits are applicable to any dwelling, public building, school, place of worship, or community or institutional building in connection with blasting activities under OSM’s jurisdiction. 2 Ground vibration shall be measured as the particle velocity. Particle velocity shall be recorded in three mutually perpendicular directions. The maximum allowable peak particle velocity shall apply to each of the three measurements. The maximum allowable peak velocity shown is higher for a structure located closer to the blast site. This is because the higher frequencies (ground-borne vibration generated by blasting) are less damaging to structures than lower frequencies, and the closer to the blast, the higher are the frequencies (ground-borne vibration). Source: OSM 1986

State

California Department of Transportation

Caltrans has developed guidelines for assessing the significance of vibration produced by transportation and construction sources (Table 3.12-6). These thresholds address the subjective

Page 108 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 reactions of people to both short-term vibration (e.g., from temporary construction activities) and long-term/permanent vibration (e.g., from transit operations).

Table 3.12-6. California Department of Transportation Guidelines on Potential Criteria for Vibration Annoyance

Impact Levels, VdB re: 1 µin/sec (PPV, in/sec) Human Response Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources Barely perceptible 80 (0.040) 68 (0.010) Distinctly perceptible 96 (0.250) 80 (0.040) Strongly perceptible 107 (0.900) 88 (0.100) Severe 114 (2.000) 100 (0.400)

Notes: µin/sec = microinches per second; in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity; VdB = vibration decibels Transient sources create a single, isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. Source: Caltrans 2004

Caltrans also provides guidelines for assessing human response to blasting-related construction and the potential for structural damage related to blasting in the Transportation- and Construction-Inducted Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans 2004). Human response to vibration and air overpressures from blasting is difficult to quantify. Furthermore, ground vibration and air overpressures are likely to be felt at levels that are well below those required to produce any damage to structures. Table 3.12-7 shows the range of blasting-induced ground vibration levels in PPV and dB units, as well as human perception at these levels. The vibration perceptions are the average human response to blasting-induced vibration and air overpressures that may occur when a person is at rest in a quiet surrounding.

Table 3.12-7. Human Response to Blasting Ground Vibration and Air Overpressure

Ground Vibration, PPV Average Human Response Airblast, dB (inch/second) Barely to distinctly perceptible 0.02 – 0.10 50 – 70 Distinctly to strongly perceptible 0.10 – 0.50 70 – 90 Strongly perceptible to mildly unpleasant 0.50 – 1.00 90 – 120 Mildly to distinctly unpleasant 1.00 – 2.00 120 – 140 Distinctly unpleasant to intolerable 2.00 – 10.00 140 – 170

Notes: dB = decibels; PPV = peak particle velocity This table shows the average human response to blasting-induced vibration and air overpressures that may occur when a person is at rest in a quiet surrounding. Source: Caltrans 2004

Page 109 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Local

Section 53091 of the Government Code states that building and zoning ordinances do not apply to “construction of facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water, wastewater, or electrical energy by a local agency.” Public utility projects that serve the facilities described above would not be subject to local plans, policies, regulations, or ordinances. The following local regulations related to noise are provided for informational purposes, as a basis to assist with CEQA review in evaluating the level of significance associated with impacts.

El Dorado County General Plan

The Health, Safety, and Noise Element of the El Dorado County General Plan (El Dorado County 2014), adopted on July 19, 2004, and amended in December 2014, addresses construction noise and establishes significance criteria and the following goals, objectives, and policies applicable to noise production. Although the tables in the General Plan include limits for nighttime construction noise, the General Plan states that these limits “shall apply to those activities associated with actual construction of a project as long as such construction occurs between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekends, and on federally-recognized holidays.”

Goal 6.5: Acceptable Noise Levels—Ensure that County residents are not subjected to noise beyond acceptable levels.

• Objective 6.5.1: Protection of Noise-Sensitive Development—Protect existing noise- sensitive developments (e.g., hospitals, schools, churches and residential) from new uses that would generate noise levels incompatible with those uses and, conversely, discourage noise-sensitive uses from locating near sources of high noise levels.

. Policy 6.5.1.2: Where proposed non-residential land uses are likely to produce noise levels exceeding the performance standards of (Table 3.12-8) at existing or planned noise-sensitive uses, an acoustical analysis shall be required as part of the environmental review process so that noise mitigation may be included in the project design.

Table 3.12-8. Noise Level Performance Protection Standards for Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Affected by Non-transportation Sources

Daytime Evening Nighttime Noise Level Descriptor (7 a.m.–7 p.m.) (7 p.m.–10 p.m.) (10 p.m.–7 a.m.) Community Rural Community Rural Community Rural

Hourly Leq, dB 55 50 50 45 45 40

Max. Level—Lmax, dB 70 60 60 55 55 50

Notes: dB = decibels; Leq = equivalent sound level, Lmax = maximum sound level Each of the noise levels specified above shall be lowered by 5 dB for simple tone noises, noises consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. These noise level standards do not apply to residential units established in conjunction with industrial or commercial uses (e.g., caretaker dwellings).

Page 110 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Table 3.12-8. Noise Level Performance Protection Standards for Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Affected by Non-transportation Sources The County can impose noise level standards that are up to 5 dB less than those specified above based upon determination of existing low ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. In community areas the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving property. In rural areas the exterior noise level standard shall be applied at a point 100 feet away from the residence. The above standards shall be measured only on property containing a noise sensitive land use as defined in Objective 6.5.1. This measurement standard may be amended to provide for measurement at the boundary of a recorded noise easement between all affected property owners and approved by El Dorado County. For the purposes of the Noise Element, transportation noise sources are defined as traffic on public roadways, railroad line operations, and aircraft in flight. Control of noise from these sources is preempted by federal and state regulations. Control of noise from facilities of regulated public facilities is preempted by California Public Utilities Commission regulations. All other noise sources are subject to local regulations. Non-transportation noise sources may include industrial operations, outdoor recreation facilities, HVAC units, schools, hospitals, commercial land uses, and other outdoor land uses. Source: El Dorado County 2014

. Policy 6.5.1.3: Where noise mitigation measures are required to achieve the standards (Table 3.12-9), the emphasis of such measures shall be placed upon site planning and project design. The use of noise barriers shall be considered a means of achieving the noise standards only after all other practical design-related noise mitigation measures have been integrated into the project and the noise barriers are not incompatible with the surroundings.

Table 3.12-9. Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Transportation Noise Sources

Land Use Outdoor Activity Areas1 Interior Spaces

Ldn/CNEL, dB 2 Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq, dB

3 Residential 60 45 --

3 Transient Lodging 60 45 --

3 Hospitals, Nursing Homes 60 45 --

Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls -- -- 35

3 Churches, Meeting Halls, Schools 60 -- 40

Office Buildings -- -- 45

Libraries, Museums -- -- 45

Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 70 -- --

Notes: CNEL = community noise equivalent level; dB = decibels; Ldn = day-night average level; Leq = equivalent sound level 1 In communities and rural centers where the location of outdoor activity areas is not clearly defined, the exterior noise level standard are to be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. For residential uses with front yards facing the identified noise source, an exterior noise level criterion of 65 dB Ldn would be applied at the building facade, in addition to a 60 dB Ldn criterion at the outdoor activity area. In rural areas, an exterior noise level criterion of 60 dB Ldn would be applied at a 100-foot radius from the residence unless it is within platted lands where the underlying land use designation is consistent with community densities, in which case the 65 dB Ldn may apply. The 100-foot radius would apply to properties which are 5 acres and larger; the balance would fall under the property line requirement. 2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.

Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB Ldn/CNEL or less using a practical application of the best- available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB Ldn/CNEL may be allowed, provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table. Source: El Dorado County 2014

Page 111 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

. Policy 6.5.1.7: Noise created by new proposed non-transportation noise sources shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the noise level standards (Table 3.12-8) for noise-sensitive uses.

. Policy 6.5.1.9: Noise created by new transportation noise sources, excluding airport expansion but including roadway improvement projects, shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the levels specified (Table 3.12-9) at existing noise-sensitive land uses.

. Policy 6.5.1.11: The standards outlined in Tables 6-3, 6-4, and 6-5 [Table 3.12-10] shall apply to those activities associated with actual construction of a project as long as such construction occurs between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekends, and on federally-recognized holidays. Exceptions are allowed if it can be shown that construction beyond these times is necessary to alleviate traffic congestion and safety hazards.

Table 3.12-10. Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Non-transportation Noise Sources in Rural Areas—Construction Noise

Noise Level, dB Land Use Designation Time Period Leq Lmax 7 a.m.–7 p.m. 50 60 All residential 7 p.m.–10 p.m. 45 55 10 p.m.–7 a.m. 40 50 7 a.m.–7 p.m. 65 75 Commercial, recreation, and public facilities 7 p.m.–7 a.m. 60 70 Rural land, natural resources, open space, and 7 a.m.–7 p.m. 65 75 agricultural lands 7 p.m.–7 a.m. 60 70

Notes: dB = decibels; Leq = equivalent sound level, Lmax = maximum sound level Source: El Dorado County 2014

Impacts and Mitigation Measures a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, State, or Federal standards?

The proposed project would generate only temporary and short-term construction noise from equipment operating in the project area and from the transport of construction equipment, materials, and workers to and from the project area. For construction noise, the potential for impacts was assessed by considering typical noise levels associated with construction equipment, the proximity of construction-related noise sources to sensitive receptors, the potential for construction noise levels to interfere with residential activities, and the duration that sensitive receptors would be affected. To address the CEQA significance criterion regarding “noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan,” this IS/MND considers Policies 6.5.1.2, 6.5.1.3, 6.5.1.7, 6.5.1.9, and 6.5.1.11 in the Health, Safety, and

Page 112 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Noise Element of the El Dorado County General Plan. The noise impact could be significant if construction that could generate substantial noise extended beyond the time limits of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily, except on weekends and holidays when construction hours would be limited to 8 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (El Dorado County 2014). These are the most restrictive criteria established by El Dorado County and allow the most conservative assessment of noise impacts at existing noise-sensitive uses in the project vicinity.

Construction Equipment

Because construction would occur during daylight hours, generally between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., the General Plan construction noise limits of 50 dB (Leq) and 605 dB (Lmax [maximum sound level]) (Policy 6.5.1.11 in the Health, Safety, and Noise Element, Table 3.12-10) were used to assess impacts.

Appendix D presents a detailed summary of the noise calculations for the proposed project. As shown in Table 3.12-11, project-related construction noise was estimated using FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model and a list of heavy equipment that is expected to be used for construction. As shown in Table 3.12-10, the unmitigated noise level at a distance of 50 feet, produced by the combinations of equipment during construction would be approximately 78 dBA Leq (i.e., for less noisy activities such as those associated with Penstock and Boating Flow Valve) to 94 dBA Leq (i.e., for noisier activities such as those associated with blasting and helicopter use). Assuming standard spherical spreading loss (-6 dB per doubling of distance), and assuming the highest unmitigated construction noise level of 78 dBA Leq to 86 dBA Leq at 50 feet for less noisy construction, and 92 dBA Leq to 94 dBA Leq at 50 feet for noisier construction, construction noise levels would be 53 dBA Leq to 61 dBA Leq, at the nearest noise- sensitive uses (exterior).

Table 3.12-11. Construction Equipment, and Calculated Noise Levels, dB

Noise Level Noise Level at Closest Anticipated Construction Phase/Type of Equipment that May at 50 Feet, dB Receivers (2,200 feet), dB Be Used by the Contractor Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Iowa Canyon Creek Reconfiguration and Bridge Crane 77 85 44 52 Excavator 81 85 48 52 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 76 80 43 47 Pavers 82 85 49 52 Combined Noise Level 86 85 53 52 Road Improvements and Transmission Line Crane 77 85 44 52 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 76 80 43 47 Grader 81 85 48 52 Combined Noise Level 83 85 50 52

Page 113 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Table 3.12-11. Construction Equipment, and Calculated Noise Levels, dB

Noise Level Noise Level at Closest Anticipated Construction Phase/Type of Equipment that May at 50 Feet, dB Receivers (2,200 feet), dB Be Used by the Contractor Leq Lmax Leq Lmax White Rock Tunnel and Adit Connection Other Material Handling Equipment 60 73 27 40 Rough Terrain Forklift 78 85 45 52 Generator 79 82 46 49 Combined Noise Level 82 85 49 52 Penstock and Boating Flow Valve Other Material Handling Equipment 60 73 27 40 Rough Terrain Forklift 78 85 45 52 Combined Noise Level 78 85 45 52 Powerhouse and Electrical Power Line Crane 77 85 44 52 Rough Terrain Forklift 78 85 45 52 Crushing/Processing Equipment 78 85 45 52 Generator 79 82 46 49 Excavator 81 85 48 52 Combined Noise Level 86 85 53 52 Blasting Blasting 91 94 58 61 Rock Drill 82 85 49 52 Sand Blasting (Single Nozzle) 82 85 49 52 Combined Noise Level 92 94 59 61 SFAR Habitat Improvement Excavator 81 85 48 52 Helicopter (Import Excavator) 94 94 61 61 Combined Noise Level 94 94 61 61 SFAR Gravel Augmentation Excavator 81 85 48 52 Combined Noise Level 81 85 48 52

Note: dB = decibels; Leq = equivalent sound level (the sound energy averaged over a continuous 15-minute to 1-hour period); Lmax = maximum instantaneous sound level; N/A = not available Source: Data compiled by AECOM in 2015

Page 114 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

The project area is at the bottom of the SFAR canyon, at an elevation of 1,600 feet. Actual construction noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors would be substantially less than those indicated in Table 3.12-11 because of the presence of intervening land with steep topography and dense vegetation. These physiographic features provide noise attenuation of at least 15 dBA, because of the difference in elevation between the receptors and line-of-sight of the noise source (FHWA 2011). Based on site topography, the project construction noise levels of 53 dBA Leq to 61 dBA Leq would be reduced by 15 dB and would be 38 dBA Leq to 46 dBA Leq, at the nearest noise-sensitive uses. These noise levels would not exceed El Dorado County’s daytime noise level limit of 50 dBA Leq for residential properties (Policy 6.5.1.11 in the Health, Safety, and Noise Element; and shown in Table 3.12-10).

Thus, noise levels from project construction would comply with the applicable noise exposure limits established by the County and project construction impacts would be less than significant. Any construction after 7 p.m. would not include the use of heavy equipment or blasting and therefore would be below the nighttime limits and any impacts would be less than significant. Project-related construction traffic noise levels were estimated (as shown in Table 3.12-11) using FHWA’s Roadway Noise Model (FWHA RD-77-108) at 50 feet from the centerline of roadways, and assuming up to 10 daily truck trips (between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m.) for equipment and materials, and 12 trips per day for construction workers commutes.

Construction traffic noise on roadways in the project vicinity were estimated for slightly noisier environments, such as roadways from US 50 to staging area, and less noisy environments like roadways from the staging area to the project area. As shown in Table 3.12-12, the unmitigated noise level produced by the construction traffic for the proposed project would be approximately 52 dBA Leq at 50 feet along project vicinity roadways. The distance between the closest noise sensitive uses to the centerline of the project vicinity roadways was conservatively assumed to be 50 feet. Most of the residences in the project vicinity are located at further distances from project area roadways. These results represent the worst-case, conservative noise exposure because they do not consider noise attenuation associated with ground and atmospheric absorption. Therefore, actual construction traffic noise levels could be less.

As shown in Table 3.12-12, existing plus construction traffic would result in noise levels of 53 to 59 dBA Leq; therefore, they would not exceed the threshold of 60 dBA. Project-related construction traffic would not increase traffic noise levels compared to existing conditions and would not exceed the established threshold. Further, vehicles leaving the site at night would be small vehicles transporting individual workers doing work that would not require heavy equipment (e.g., electrical). Therefore, construction-related traffic noise impacts would be less than significant.

Table 3.12-12. Traffic Noise—Existing + Construction Condition

Traffic Noise Level dB, Leq at 50 feet Area Project Increase Existing Construction Existing + Construction From U.S. Route 50 to the Staging Area 58 52 59 1 From the Staging Area to the Project Area 47 52 53 6

Notes: dB = decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level Source: Modeling conducted by AECOM in 2015

Page 115 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Project excavation and other construction activities could result in vibration that could disturb nearby residents and cause cosmetic damage to existing buildings or structures. The proposed project would generate construction vibration from equipment operating in the project area and from transport of construction equipment and materials to and from the project area.

Construction Equipment

This section estimates vibration levels at sensitive receptors for a given vibration source and setback distance, and compares the estimates to applicable thresholds for cosmetic damage to structures. FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment provides criteria for groundborne vibration impacts with respect to human annoyance and building damage during project construction. To address human response (annoyance) to groundborne vibration, FTA has established maximum acceptable vibration thresholds for different land uses. These guidelines recommend 65 VdB for land uses where low ambient vibration is essential for interior operations (e.g., hospitals, high-tech manufacturing, and laboratory facilities), 80 VdB for residential uses and buildings where people normally sleep, and 83 VdB for institutional land uses with primarily daytime operations (e.g., schools, places of worship, clinics, and offices) (FTA 2006). According to FTA guidelines, a vibration-damage criterion of 0.20 in/sec PPV should be considered for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. Structures or buildings constructed of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber have a vibration-damage criterion of 0.50 in/sec PPV, pursuant to the FTA guidelines.

The distance between project construction and the nearest vibration-sensitive uses would be approximately 1,000 to 2,200 feet. The construction activities were conservatively assumed to produce a vibration level of approximately 87 VdB (0.089 in/sec PPV) for typical construction equipment (at a distance of 25 feet, the reference vibration level for operation of a large bulldozer [FTA 2006; Caltrans 2004]). Project construction associated with blasting was conservatively assumed to produce a vibration level of approximately 94 to 108 VdB (0.20 to 1.00 in/sec PPV) at a distance of 25 feet (Table 3.12-5 [OSM 1986]).

Assuming a standard reduction of 9 VdB per doubling of distance (FTA 2006), the project- related construction vibration level at the nearest receivers would be approximately 36 VdB (0.000 PPV) to 60 VdB (0.004 PPV), as shown in Table 3.12-13. This level of vibration would be well below the established thresholds of 80 VdB and likely would not be perceptible at residential uses and buildings where people normally sleep, and it also would be below the vibration-damage criterion of 0.20 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, or 0.50 in/sec PPV for structures or buildings constructed of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber, pursuant to the FTA guidelines. Therefore, the proposed project’s vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Page 116 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Table 3.12-13. Project-Related Blasting (Worst-Case) Vibration Levels, VdB (PPV) Project, Blasting (Worst-Case) Vibration Levels at 25 feet at Receivers Location Shortest Distance (ft) Between µin/sec PPV VdB Noise-Sensitive Uses and VdB PPV Proposed Construction Areas 5001 Slab Creek Reservoir Rd., Camino, CA 95709 1.0 108 2200 0.000 36 7422 White Oak Drive, Placerville, CA 95667 1.0 108 2300 0.001 50 Slab Creek Dam 1.0 108 1000 0.004 60 Note: µin/sec = microinches per second; in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity; VdB = vibration decibels Source: Modeling conducted by AECOM in 2015

Construction Traffic

Project construction would result in additional vehicle trips on local roadways when construction workers commute and project-related equipment and materials are transported. Heavy truck traffic could generate groundborne vibration, which would vary considerably, depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. However, groundborne vibration levels generated from vehicular traffic typically are not perceptible outside the road right-of-way. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts from construction traffic vibration would be less than significant. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

The stationary noise source (the turbine/generating units) would be the only operational noise source associated with the proposed project. However, this noise-generating unit would be shielded, would be placed in an enclosed powerhouse, and would not affect noise levels on the outside. In addition, the proposed project would not alter the local environment, such as by increasing the noise production/exposure associated with existing, permanent sources of noise in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact on permanent ambient noise levels would be less than significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

The proposed project would generate construction noise from equipment operating in the project area, and from the transport of construction equipment, materials, and workers to and from the project area. To address the CEQA significance criterion regarding “substantial temporary or periodic noise increases in ambient noise levels” for construction noise, this impact analysis uses standard analytical methodologies, such as comparing the estimated construction-related noise levels to ambient noise levels in the project area. Noise increases that exceeded 5 dBA above ambient would be significant.

Page 117 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Construction Equipment

Project-related construction noise was estimated (as shown in Table 3.12-11) using FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model and a list of heavy equipment expected to be used. As shown in Table 3.12-11, the unmitigated noise level at a distance of 50 feet, produced by a combination of equipment during project construction would be approximately 78 dBA Leq (i.e., for less noisy activities, such as activities associated with the Penstock and Boating Flow Valve) to 94 dBA Leq (i.e., for noisier activities, such as activities associated with blasting and helicopter use). Assuming standard spherical spreading loss (i.e., -6 dB per doubling of distance), and assuming the highest unmitigated construction noise level of 78 to 86 dBA Leq at 50 feet for less noisy activities, and 92 to 94 dBA Leq at 50 feet for noisier activities, the project construction noise levels would be 53 to 61 dBA Leq at the nearest noise-sensitive uses (exterior).

Because the project area is at the bottom of the SFAR canyon, construction noise impacts would be substantially reduced by the intervening land between the construction site and the nearest residences. These physiographic features could provide noise attenuation of at least 15 dBA because they would be several feet higher than the line-of-sight between the noise source and the receiver (FHWA 2011). Therefore, the project construction noise levels of 53 to 61 dBA Leq would be reduced by 15 dB and would be 38 to 46 dBA Leq, at the nearest noise- sensitive uses.

Because of the rural/agricultural land in the project vicinity, ambient noise levels are expected to be quite low—at or below 50 dBA Leq, 45 dBA Leq, and 40 dBA Leq during the daytime, evening, and nighttime hours, respectively. This assumption also conforms with the ambient noise levels measured in 2004, during UARP/Iowa Hill relicensing near existing noise-sensitive uses in the project area that were between 31 and 52 dBA (CH2M HILL 2008).The estimated project- related construction noise levels of 38 to 46 dBA Leq at residences closest to the project area would cause an increase to exterior ambient noise levels of only 2 dB. This level of increase would not exceed the threshold of 5 dB above ambient noise levels. Furthermore, any nighttime work would be conducted without heavy equipment or blasting and any related noise impacts would not contribute to ambient noise in residential areas. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact on temporary ambient noise would be less than significant.

Construction Traffic

Project construction would result in approximately two truck trips and 20 worker trips per peak hour (see Transportation discussion in this chapter). Noise-sensitive land uses including residential properties were conservatively assumed to be located 50 feet from the centerline of roads in the project vicinity. As shown in Table 3.12-12, the unmitigated noise level produced by project construction traffic would be approximately 52 dBA Leq at 50 feet along the roadways in the project vicinity. These results represent the worst-case, conservative noise exposure because they do not consider noise attenuation associated with ground and atmospheric absorption. Therefore, actual project construction traffic noise levels could be less.

As shown in Table 3.12-12, the increase in traffic noise level because of project construction traffic above the existing traffic noise level would be 1 to 6 dB. Because project-related

Page 118 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 construction traffic would cause increases of 5 dB or more in traffic noise levels in the project vicinity, this impact would be potentially significant.

Potential impacts on noise levels were addressed in the 2015 FERC EA. According the EA, SMUD would be required to prepare and implement a construction noise plan. The purpose of the plan would be to minimize the level of project-generated noise emanating from the construction site and local roads. The plan would include a number of measures including: (1) limiting the hours and days of noise-generating construction activities; (2) periodic construction noise monitoring; (3) proper maintenance of construction equipment to reduce noise; (4) establishing a community response program; (5) requiring all vehicles to undergo regular maintenance, in particular muffler maintenance; (6) limit speeds on Slab Creek Road to 20 miles per hour or less; (7) limiting equipment/materials transportation to between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. on weekdays; and (8) limiting idling of vehicles.

Furthermore, helicopter use would result in construction noise. Light-duty helicopters typically result in noise levels of 72-81 dBA at 250 feet from the helicopter. Heavy-duty helicopters typically result in noise levels of 90 to 96 dBA at 250 feet from the helicopters (Helicopter Association 1993). As shown in Table 3.12-11, the unmitigated noise level produced by helicopter use would be 94 dBA Leq at 50 feet. This level of noise would expose people on-site to excessive aircraft noise levels, which would be potentially significant. SMUD would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1, as described below to minimize noise impacts from construction traffic and helicopter use.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1. Employ Noise-Reducing Construction Measures for Construction Traffic.

SMUD and its construction contractor(s) will implement the following measures to reduce potential impacts from construction-related increases in exterior ambient noise levels. Feasible noise controls that may be implemented to reduce equipment noise levels include the following:

• Provide written notification to the potentially affected residents before construction, identifying the approximate duration and frequency of construction activities within 200 feet of construction haul routes. Notification materials will also identify a mechanism for residents to register complaints with the appropriate jurisdiction if construction noise levels are overly intrusive or construction occurs outside the permitted hours. Notification will include the planned dates and hours during which construction activities will occur and contact information, including a daytime telephone number, for the designated disturbance coordinator to be contacted in the event that noise levels are deemed excessive. Recommendations to assist noise-sensitive land uses in reducing interior noise levels (e.g., closing windows and doors) will be included in the notification.

• Restrict the use of bells, whistles, alarms, and horns to safety-warning purposes.

• Designate a noise complaint coordinator and conspicuously post this person’s contact information around the construction site, in adjacent public spaces, and

Page 119 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

in construction notifications. The disturbance coordinator will be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction activities. The disturbance coordinator will receive all public complaints about construction disturbances and will be responsible for determining the cause of the complaint and implementation of feasible measures to be taken to alleviate the problem.

• Post the name and phone number of the designated disturbance coordinator at the construction site boundary so that the public can contact this person if noise disturbance occurs. The designated disturbance coordinator will take steps immediately to resolve any complaints received, including modifying construction practices as necessary to address the noise complaint.

• Include hearing protection in site requirements and address potential helicopter use and daily safety meetings to minimize worker exposure to helicopter noise.

Implementing the construction noise plan and Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce the potentially significant impact associated with project-related construction traffic and helicopter use noise at noise-sensitive uses and at the project site to less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

The project area is approximately 2.3 miles southwest of Swansboro Country Airport. Therefore, the proposed project is outside the airport’s areas of influence; project construction would occur outside the airport’s areas of influence; and the proposed project would not add any noise- sensitive receivers. Any helicopter flights would be coordinated with local air traffic control as required there would be no impact on an airport land use plan. 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?

No private airstrips are in the project vicinity, and the proposed project would not affect any airstrip operations. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people on- or off-site to excessive noise levels. The proposed project would have no impact.

Page 120 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.13 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?

Environmental Setting

The project site is located in rural El Dorado County near the town of Camino, which is approximately 3.8 miles to the south.

Regulatory Setting

California Government Code Sections 65580–65589.8 and cities and county general plans govern housing. However, because the project does not place or displace any houses or people, there are no applicable statutes or regulations related to population or housing.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, b, c) Would the project 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); displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; or displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The proposed project would be in the SFAR canyon. The nearest residence is on Slab Creek Reservoir Road, approximately 2,000 feet from the existing powerhouse. The proposed project would not include development of any homes or businesses, and it would not generate commercial activities substantial enough to induce growth in the project area or vicinity. The proposed project would not displace existing housing or people that would necessitate construction of replacement housing. Furthermore, the proposed project would not indirectly lead to disorderly growth or anticipated growth as defined in the El Dorado General Plan (2004). Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on population or housing.

Page 121 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities?

Environmental Setting

Fire Protection

Fire protection and related services are described in detail in the 2008 FERC/USFW FEIS and the 2015 FERC EA. The project area is adjacent to federal and private lands. The project area has experienced large wildfires in the past and CAL FIRE has characterized the area as Very High Hazard Fuels.

The project area is within the jurisdiction of the El Dorado County Fire Protection District (EDCFD), USFS, and CAL FIRE. The local CAL FIRE unit with responsibility for the project area is the Amador-El Dorado Unit, located in the town of Camino. Adjacent federal lands are under the jurisdiction of the USFS Eldorado National Forest. The nearest USFS fire station is located at the Pacific Station, east of Pollock Pines, with an approximate response time to the project area of 1 hour. Additional fire protection services are provided by the EDCFD, which provides assistance to both Cal Fire and USFS. Interagency/mutual aid agreements and the contingencies of individual fires determine appropriate responses by each agency.

Police Protection

Law enforcement in the project area is provided by the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department (Sheriff’s Office) which serves all unincorporated areas in El Dorado County. Offices that serve the project area are located in Pollock Pines and Placerville. A total of 371 people are employed by the Sherriff’s Office, including a sheriff, an undersheriff, three captains, seven lieutenants, 24 sergeants, and 128 deputy sheriffs (El Dorado Sheriff’s Office 2014). As described in the 2015 FERC EA, the project area is located in Zone 5, which is assigned one deputy sheriff.

Page 122 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Recreation-related patrol on the SFAR is provided by the El Dorado County River Patrol, BLM River Patrol, the State Parks River Patrol, and the Sheriff’s Office Boating Unit. The County of El Dorado River Program is staffed by a supervisor and two seasonal river patrol staff members who provide boater education for non-commercial boaters, river safety patrol, quiet zone patrol, and river use monitoring (i.e., carrying capacity of visitors on the weekends). The Sheriff’s Office Boating Unit is responsible for enforcing river regulations, law enforcement, and river rescue, in conjunction with the El Dorado County Parks River Patrol, California Department of Parks and Recreation, BLM, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife (El Dorado County 2013). The Sherriff’s Office Boating Unit has one full-time sergeant, two seasonal full-time deputies, and seasonal deputies for additional help. The jurisdiction of the Sheriff’s Office Boating Unit includes patrol of reservoirs and lakes, such as Lake Tahoe, and the SFAR within El Dorado County.

Schools

Schools near the project area are in the communities of Pollock Pines, Camino, and Placerville. The Pollock Pines School District serves elementary and middle school students (PPESD 2015). The Camino Union School District has an elementary school and a science and natural resources charter school (CUSD 2015). The Placerville School District has two elementary schools and one middle school (PUSD 2015). High school students in the communities discussed above and unincorporated county near the project area attend one of the four El Dorado Union High School District schools (EDUHSD 2015).

Parks

The parks nearest to the project area are in the community of Placerville, approximately 9 miles south of the project area, and include Lumsden, Gold, Lions, and Rotary Parks. The park facilities provide hiking, gold mining, softball, tennis, picnics, community gatherings, and playgrounds (City of Placerville 2015). Recreational opportunities on USFS lands are discussed in Section 3.15, Recreation.

Other Public Facilities

No other public facilities are in the project vicinity.

Regulatory Setting

No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to public services apply to the proposed project.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Page 123 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Fire Protection

Potential project impacts on fire protection services are discussed in detail in the 2015 FERC EA. The project area is on lands within the jurisdiction of the EDCFD; USFS, and CAL FIRE. Furthermore, the project area is within a State Responsibility Area, under the jurisdiction of CAL FIRE. USFS and CAL FIRE have a mutual aid agreement. These agencies would continue to provide fire protection in the project area. With the addition of the powerhouse and increased recreational use, the proposed project could expose people to an incremental increase in the risk of wildfire; however, the powerhouse would be a hydroelectric generating facility and would not require a fuel source to operate the turbine. In addition, as described in SMUD’s FERC license, the 2008 FERC/USFS FEIS, and the 2015 FERC EA, whitewater rafting would be limited to selected weekends and would depend on water availability (i.e., water year). Thus the increase in fire related risk associate with recreational uses would be periodic and would be similar to existing uses. Moreover, SMUD’s amended FERC license for the powerhouse would require SMUD to prepare and implement a Construction Fire Protection Plan. SMUD would be required to submit a plan to minimize the potential of fire during construction and would address issues such fuels management, smoking, and use of flammable materials.

Additional fire protection measures are required by the 2015 FERC EA and include incorporating California Forest Practice Rules and using the USFS PAL system, which incorporates specific criteria related to fire threat. To ensure fire protection following construction, SMUD would modify the UARP Fire Prevention and Response Plan to incorporate the project.

Given the intensive coverage of the project area by fire protection agencies, SMUD’s program to minimize the potential for fire during construction, and the episodic nature of the increases in recreational use, the project would have a less than significant impact on fire risk and would not require construction or expansion of fire protection facilities.

Police Protection

Potential project impacts on police protection services are described in the 2015 FERC EA. The project area is under the jurisdiction of the El Dorado Sheriff’s Department and is located in Zone 5, which is patrolled by one sheriff.

The project would provide new recreational opportunities, most notably whitewater rafting below Slab Creek Dam and the improved boater put-in. Several management agencies are responsible for implementing boat policy, safety, and law enforcement along the SFAR, including the El Dorado County River Patrol, BLM River Patrol, and State Parks River Patrol, where agency jurisdiction applies. Law enforcement responsibilities in the project area and downstream along the SFAR are provided by the Sheriff’s Office Boating Unit.

The proposed project would not result in a substantial increased need for police protection or new or expanded facilities. The project area already supports UARP facilities, including Slab Creek Dam and reservoir, and requires police protection. Law enforcement agencies use existing facilities to provide police protection for existing boating activity and the proposed project would add an increment of recreational use on select weekends. However, SMUD’s amended FERC license would require preparation and implementation of a Recreation

Page 124 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Management Plan that would address a variety of safety issues. As described in the 2015 FERC EA, project boating releases would provide high flows for whitewater rafting; however, police safety protection needs would be limited as the release events would be limited to skilled whitewater rafters.

Given the existing need for a high level of police protection and boating safety, the agencies that provide police protection would continue provide services using existing facilities. For the planned episodic boating flow releases, SMUD would coordinate with the El Dorado County River Patrol, El Dorado Sherriff’s Office Boating Unit, and other agencies responsible for providing river patrol and whitewater rafting safety on the SFAR. Given the existing police coverage and the continued episodic nature of whitewater rafting in the SFAR reach below Slab Creek Dam, the project would have no impact on police protection and boating safety coverage and would not require construction of new or expanded police facilities.

Schools

The proposed project would include a peak workforce of approximately 50 workers during the estimated 2.5-year construction duration. These workers are expected to come from Sacramento and El Dorado Counties and it is unlikely that workers would relocate to the area just for the duration of construction. In addition, project construction would occur primarily during the summer when schools are closed. Therefore, the project would not result in a high number of construction workers and an increase in students such that the local school districts would need to construct new schools or expand existing schools. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to new or expanded school facilities.

Parks

The proposed project would not cause an increased demand for park facilities. The proposed project would include a peak workforce of approximately 50 workers during the estimated 2.5-year construction duration. These workers are expected to come from Sacramento and El Dorado Counties and given the temporary and seasonal nature of construction, it is unlikely that construction workers would relocated to the area. In addition, recreational opportunities created by the proposed project would be limited to episodic boating flow releases and it is highly unlikely that recreationalists or vendors would relocate and generate a need for additional public parks. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to the construction of new or expanded park facilities.

Other Public Facilities

For the reasons cited above, the project would have no impact related to the construction or expansion of other public facilities such as libraries or public recreation facilities.

Page 125 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.15 RECREATION Would the project: a) 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) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Environmental Setting

The project area is on lands managed by the ENF, under USFS jurisdiction. Recreational opportunities on USFS lands include hiking, fishing, camping, cross-county and downhill skiing, hunting, river rafting, boating, and dispersed forms of recreation (USFS 1988).

The SFAR is a popular destination for river rafting. The SFAR includes stretches of whitewater rafting/floating that range from novice to advanced skill level. Several whitewater rafting outfitters are available for commercial trips on the SFAR. The SFAR draws over 100,000 annual rafting/kayaking visits a year below Chili Bar Reservoir, which is approximately 6 miles south of the project area. In 2013, 33 permitted commercial outfitters used this stretch of the SFAR. On the peak day in July 2013, 1,558 people occupied 259 rafts (El Dorado County 2013).

The environmental setting for recreation is further discussed in SMUD’s license amendment application and 2015 FERC EA. The river below Slab Creek Dam is seldom used for recreation because of the steep terrain that limits access and opportunity. Access points are limited to the project area and Mosquito Road Bridge, which is approximately 3 river miles downstream from the proposed powerhouse location. Specific recreation opportunities below Slab Creek Dam include swimming, hiking/walking, fishing, picnicking, canoeing/kayaking, photography, and river rafting. River rafting below Slab Creek Dam is considered difficult, and us is advised only by experienced boaters.

The existing rafting opportunity below Slab Creek Dam runs 7 miles down the river to Chili Bar Reservoir and is limited to spring and early summer because of the seasonality of available water flows. The annual number of river rafters on this stretch is not known, but under existing conditions, this stretch of the SFAR does not support adequate whitewater recreation activity (AAR 2015).

Page 126 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Regulatory Setting

Recreation on adjacent USFS-lands is guided by the Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS 1988). This management plan provides policy specific to recreational opportunities and management criteria in the ENF.

Management specific to recreation on the SFAR is directed by the El Dorado River Management Advisory Committee; a formal advisory body appointed by the County to makes recommendations to the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors on matters related to whitewater rafting recreation. El Dorado County is the permitting agency for river rafting along the SFAR. Private boater permit tags are required for all non-commercial rafting groups by a County ordinance that provides health and safety guidelines, and includes river maps showing public and private lands, port-a-potty locations, campgrounds, and other resources (State Parks 2014).

The El Dorado County General Plan also contains a Parks and Recreation Element to addresses recreational use of SFAR.

Parks and Recreation Element

Goal 9.1 Parks and Recreation Facilities. Provide adequate recreation opportunities and facilities including developed regional and community parks, trails, and resource-based recreation areas for the health and welfare of all residents and visitors of El Dorado County.

• Objective 9.1.4 Rivers and Waterways. Conserve and promote the waterways of El Dorado County, particularly the South Fork of the American River, as recreational and economic assets.

. Policy 9.1.4.1 The River Management Plan, South Fork of the American River, (River Management Plan) is considered the implementation plan for the river management policies of this chapter.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures 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?

Potential recreation impacts are addressed in the 2015 FERC EA. The proposed project would not introduce new residents or a large number of workers to the extent that existing neighborhood or regional parks would deteriorate from heavy use. However, the project would increase use of the SFAR reach downstream from Slab Creek Dam for whitewater rafting. When operational, the improved access to the boat put-in area and the new boating flow valve would enhance whitewater rafting opportunities. The valve would be constructed to minimize potential “spray” to river rafters below the valve and the project would include improved access to the boat put-in area. New whitewater river rafting opportunities would occur for approximately 6 to 7 weekends during the high-volume spring season release. Additional whitewater boating would occur along the SFAR below Slab Creek Dam to the Mosquito Road Bridge takeout, or on Chili

Page 127 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Bar Reservoir, approximately 3 miles and 8 miles south of the improved boater put-in, respectively. New recreational use along the SFAR could affect vegetation along the river banks, cause water quality/sanitation concerns, and affect wildlife. To minimize these effects, FERC would require SMUD to prepare and implement a recreation management plan. In addition, the water below Slab Creek Dam would be characterized by class IV/V rafting3 and the degree of whitewater rafting expertise required to navigate this reach would limit the number of whitewater river rafters, reducing recreational impacts. The number of recreationist on SFAR in this stretch of the river is expected to be limited, and would be managed under SMUD’s recreation plan, to be prepared as a condition of the FERC license. This impact would be less than significant. b) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

The project would include improved recreation facilities including the new boating flow release valve, improved access to the boat put-in site, and improved parking spaces for boaters. However, the resulting recreational activity would occur along an 8-mile reach of SFAR downstream from Slab Creek Dam, and construction of these whitewater rafting related facilities would not require the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact from the construction or expansion of other recreational facilities.

3 Class I, Easy: Fast moving water with riffles and small waves; Class II, Novice: Straightforward rapids with wide, clear channels that are evident without scouting; Class III, Intermediate: Rapids with moderate, irregular waves that may be difficult to avoid and can swamp an open canoe; Class IV, Advanced: Intense, powerful but predictable rapids requiring precise boat handling in turbulent water; Class V, Expert: Extremely long, obstructed or very violent rapids that expose a boater to added risk; Class VI, Extreme and Exploratory: These runs have almost never been attempted and often exemplify the extremes of difficulty, unpredictability, and danger (FERC/USFS 2008).

Page 128 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.16 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 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 that 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 regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance of such facilities?

Environmental Setting

U.S. Highway 50 is the primary east-west transportation corridor through the County connecting the El Dorado Hills community to South Lake Tahoe. Within the project vicinity, U.S. Highway 50 provides access to the two-lane county roads that traverse the Camino community north of the highway and connect to the project site. These county roads include Carson Road, Larsen Drive, North Canyon Road, and Slab Creek Road. Access to the project site from U.S. Highway 50 is provided from two separate connections to Carson Road, which parallels the highway to the north. These connections include a non-signalized, at-grade intersection between Placerville and Camino identified by Caltrans as the “Junction Old Highway” intersection and a grade- separated interchange near central Camino identified as the east Camino interchange (SMUD 2014). To access Carson Road from the Junction Old Highway intersection when travelling

Page 129 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 eastbound on U.S. Highway 50, vehicles are required to cross the westbound travel lanes. To avoid this crossing, vehicles can continue east on U.S. Highway 50 for approximately 2 miles to the east Camino interchange to access a grade-separated off-ramp that connects to Carson Road under the highway. Westbound vehicles can access Carson Road from either the east Camino interchange or the Junction Old Highway intersection connection. Carson Road connects with Larsen Drive at a “T” intersection near the historic core of Camino. Larsen Drive extends north to a “T” intersection with North Canyon Road, which extends west and north to a “T” intersection with Slab Creek Road. Slab Creek Road extends north and east into the SFAR canyon and to the project site. The characteristics of these roads are described in the Access Roads discussion in the 2008 FERC/USFS FEIS (Section 3.3.7.1, Land Use).

Regulatory Setting

The El Dorado County General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element provides the framework for decisions in El Dorado County concerning the countywide transportation system. The Transportation and Circulation Element includes Policy TC-Xd which implements the General Plan GOAL TC-X: “To coordinate planning and implementation of roadway improvements with new development to maintain adequate levels of service on County roads.” Policy TC-Xd specifically states the following:

Level of Service (LOS) for County-maintained roads and state highways within the unincorporated areas of the county shall not be worse than LOS E in the Community Regions or LOS D in the Rural Centers and Rural Regions except as specified in Table TC-2. The volume to capacity ratio of the roadway segments listed in Table TC-2 shall not exceed the ratio specified in that table. Level of Service will be as defined in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council) and calculated using the methodologies contained in that manual. Analysis periods shall be based on the professional judgment of the Department of Transportation which shall consider periods including, but not limited to, Weekday Average Daily Traffic (ADT), AM Peak Hour, and PM Peak Hour traffic volumes.

The roadways within the project vicinity included in Table TC-2, as referenced above, are limited to segments of U.S. Highway 50.

Transportation and Circulation Element Policy TC-Xe defines when a project is considered to worsen traffic conditions as follows:

For the purposes of this Transportation and Circulation Element, “worsen” is defined as any of the following number of project trips using a road facility at the time of issuance of a use and occupancy permit for the development project:

. A 2 percent increase in traffic during the a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour, or daily, or

. The addition of 100 or more daily trips, or

. The addition of 10 or more trips during the a.m. peak hour or the p.m. peak hour.

Page 130 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

El Dorado County Bicycle Transportation Plan

The El Dorado County Bicycle Transportation Plan (El Dorado County Transportation Commission 2010) provides a blueprint for the development of a bicycle transportation system on the western slope of El Dorado County. Adopted in 2010, the Bicycle Transportation Plan represents the efforts of the El Dorado County Transportation Commission staff, the Bicycle Transportation Plan Advisory Committee, El Dorado County, El Dorado Hills Community Services District, and County citizens to develop a safe, efficient, and convenient network of bicycle facilities that establish alternative transportation as a viable option in El Dorado County and neighboring regions. The plan addresses the following specific issues and objectives pertaining to non-motorized transportation (ICF International 2014).

• Bicycle commuting—develop a bicycle transportation system that enhances the safety and convenience of bicycling to neighboring jurisdictions, employment centers, residential neighborhoods, campgrounds, parks, education, commercial and other activity centers in El Dorado County.

• Safety and education—maximize bicycle safety.

• Implementation and maintenance—identify detailed and prioritized improvements in the El Dorado County Bicycle Transportation Plan.

• Land use development—integrate bicycle and pedestrian planning with other regional and community planning, including land use and transportation.

• Multi-modal integration—maximize multi-modal connections to the bicycle transportation system.

• Funding—obtain all possible funding for plan implementation.

• Connectivity—develop a well-connected bikeway system.

• The El Dorado Trail—in usable segments, develop Class I Bike Paths on the El Dorado Trail.

El Dorado County Long Range and Short Range Transit Plans

The El Dorado County Short Range Long Range Transit Plan Study (LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2003) and Western El Dorado County 2008 Short Range Transit Plan (LSC Transportation Consultants 2008) outline the long- and short-term planning steps necessary for public transit service in El Dorado County to respond to continued growth. The plans recommend a focus on commuters traveling within El Dorado County and to Sacramento County, as well as key markets such as elderly/disabled services and activity center shuttles (ICF International 2014).

Page 131 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Impacts and Mitigation Measures 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 established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

The project would not conflict with the State Route 50 Transportation Concept Report, the MTP/SCS, the MTIP, or the El Dorado County Regional Transportation Plan. The State Route 50 Transportation Concept Report identifies long-range improvements and desired LOS for U.S. Highway 50. However, the temporary construction vehicle traffic on U.S. Highway 50 associated with the project would primarily occur outside of peak-hour traffic conditions and would be within the 2.5-year construction timeframe. Therefore, the project would not increase the demand for long-range improvements or degrade long-term LOS levels. Similarly, the MTP/SCS, the MTIP, and the El Dorado County Regional Transportation Plan are focused on the long-term transportation needs within the region based on projected growth and associated transportation infrastructure constraints. The short-term nature of the project’s construction traffic generation would not conflict with the implementation of these long-term transportation plans.

The project would also not conflict with the El Dorado County General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element. Construction of the proposed project would result in minor temporary increases in traffic on the roads of the town of Camino, affecting existing traffic load and capacity. However, as required by the 2015 FERC EA, potential traffic impacts would be minimized by implementing the construction management measure outlined in the Slab Powerhouse Construction Transportation Plan that would be prepare by SMUD pursuant to the requirements of the amended FERC license (pending). Key among these would be the use of an offsite staging area. The staging area and its use are described in Section 2 of this Initial Study.

As described in detail in the 2015 FERC EA, implementation of the Transportation Plan would minimize the traffic impacts associated with a peak of 50 construction workers at the project site because only 5 or 6 vanpool round trips from the staging area would be necessary each day. Also, the construction workday would be scheduled such that most traffic would occur during off-peak hours. Morning construction worker traffic would occur between 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. and most of the afternoon traffic would occur between 3:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. Up to 5 delivery and/or large trucks are expected to access the site daily during the peak construction period, or a total of 10 daily one-way trips. However, most equipment/material deliveries and large truck traffic associated with project construction would occur during the non-peak hour periods of 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Overall, adding construction traffic to town of Camino roads used by residents and/or businesses would not adversely impact local roadway traffic congestion. The traffic increases

Page 132 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 would include a peak of approximately 10 to 11 daily round trips on the local roads accessing the project site over the 2.5-year construction period. Construction traffic would not worsen local traffic conditions, as defined in Transportation and Circulation Element Policy TC-Xe and listed above. In addition, specific provisions in SMUD’s Transportation Plan would be designed to ease traffic conflicts; these provisions include use of carpools and/or vanpools, offsite queuing, and traffic scheduling. For these reasons, the proposed project would not be expected to conflict with the Transportation and Circulation Element and this impact would be less than significant. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

Several small airports are located in El Dorado County. The closest (2.3 miles) is the Swansboro Country Airport to the northeast. The public airport closest to the project site is the Placerville Airport, located approximately 4 miles southwest of the project site (El Dorado County Planning Department 2009). However, neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would impact air traffic patterns at the Placerville Airport or other airports. Although one piece of construction equipment may be delivered into and removed from the SFAR canyon by helicopter, the two flights of a helicopter to the site would be coordinated with local air traffic control officials and any impacts on air traffic patterns in the project vicinity would be less than significant. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). As described in the 2015 FERC EA, the project would add construction traffic to town of Camino roads used by residents and/or businesses but impacts on traffic congestion or safety on these roads would be addressed by preparing and implementing a Transportation Plan. As described above, construction worker and delivery truck traffic would be scheduled during off-peak hours and hazards would be minimized by vanpooling and limiting the majority of construction work to weekdays. These measures would keep construction traffic off Camino area roads on the weekends when traffic volumes increase, particularly in fall and early winter due to Apple Hill tourism.

In addition, the project would not introduce new hazardous roadway design features but would improve the roads that comprise the transportation route to the construction site. These improvements would be required by the Slab Powerhouse Construction Transportation Plan and would be implemented prior to the start of construction to allow passage of construction vehicles and equipment. Most of the improvements would focus on the road leading from the terminus of Slab Creek Road to the construction site and would include replacement of the bridge leading to the proposed powerhouse and boating flow release valve construction site, and the road leading to the boat put-in area. As these steep roads are gated and are not accessible to the public, constructing these improvements would not impact local traffic. Following construction, the improved roads would be available to white-water rafters on the designated rafting weekends. Rafters would be allowed to access the boating facility to unload, and then would park at the newly improved parking spots along Slab Creek Dam Road.

Page 133 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Other roads may require improvements or the placement of traffic control procedures, measures, or devices. The 2015 FERC EA requires preparation and implementation of a Transportation Plan. This plan would require SMUD to consult with the El Dorado County Department of Transportation regarding improvements to roads, traffic control needs, and employee road hazard awareness training. The consultation would document the existing condition of the roads and the actions needed for project construction. The plan would require SMUD to leave the roads used for construction in a condition equal to or superior to their existing condition, with necessary maintenance occurring throughout the 2.5-year construction period. All temporary signs, lighting, and traffic control devices used during construction would conform to applicable agency standards. These steps would reduce existing and potential roadway safety hazards and this impact would be less than significant. e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

The proposed project would not be expected to result in inadequate emergency access. As described in the discussion of traffic hazards above, the project would include improvements to roads that comprise the transportation route to the construction site. These improvements would ensure that adequate emergency vehicle access would be maintained. In addition, because the increase in daily traffic on local town of Camino roadways associated with project construction would be less than significant, project vehicles would not impede emergency vehicle access to the community. Moreover, the project would not require any substantial roadway construction or heavy haul that would require road closures. The requirement to maintain emergency access would be addressed in the Transportation Plan. This impact would be less than significant. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decreases the performance or safety of such facilities.

Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase traffic on the roads of the town of Camino. However, the minor increase in traffic associated with the proposed project would not be expected to conflict with adopted policies regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities included in the El Dorado County Long Range Transit Plan, the Western El Dorado County Short Range Transit Plan, or the El Dorado County Bicycle Transportation Plan or otherwise decrease the performance of such facilities. These plans encourage integration of transit, bicycle and pedestrian planning with other regional planning efforts and the expansion of the County’s transit, bicycle and pedestrian facility infrastructure in a way that enhances public safety. The project’s short-term construction traffic would not conflict with these objectives. In addition, the Slab Powerhouse Construction Transportation Plan would include measures to avoiding conflicts with bicycles and pedestrians (i.e., sharing the road) and would focus on issues such as speed limits and regulatory requirements for transporting wide loads. Because of the short-term nature of the increased construction traffic, the proposed project would not conflict with public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facility policies included in the El Dorado County Long Range Transit Plan, the Western El Dorado County Short Range Transit Plan, or the El Dorado County Bicycle Transportation Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on adopted public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian policies, plans, or programs.

Page 134 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.17 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 impacts?

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

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?

Environmental Setting

Sacramento County’s Kiefer Landfill is the nearest landfill to the project area, located along State Highway 16, approximately 45 miles to the southwest. Kiefer Landfill has an estimated closure date of January 1, 2064, and has a permitted maximum capacity of 117.4 million cubic yards, with a remaining capacity of 112.9 million cubic yards (Cal Recycle 2015).

Regulatory Setting

Federal

No federal regulations related to utilities and service systems are applicable to the proposed project.

Page 135 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

State

2013 California Green Building Standards Code

The standards included in the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) (24 CCR Part 11) became effective on January 1, 2014. The CALGreen Code was developed to enhance the design and construction of buildings, and the use of sustainable construction practices, through planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental air quality (California Building Standards Commission 2013).

Chapter 6 of the 2013 CALGreen Code describes measures to reduce indoor demand for potable water by 20 percent and to reduce landscape water usage by 50 percent. It also requires separate water meters for nonresidential buildings’ indoor and outdoor water use, with a requirement for moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape projects.

Chapter 7, Section 708, of the 2013 CALGreen Code requires all construction contractors to reduce construction waste and demolition debris by 50 percent. Code requirements include preparing a construction waste management plan that identifies the materials to be diverted from disposal by efficient usage, recycling, reuse on the project, or salvage for future use or sale; determining whether materials will be sorted on-site or mixed; and identifying diversion facilities where the materials collected will be taken. The code also specifies that the amount of materials diverted should be calculated by weight or volume, but not by both. In addition, the 2013 CALGreen Code requires that 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks, and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing be reused or recycled.

California Integrated Waste Management Act

The California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA) of 1989 created the California Integrated Waste Management Board, now known as the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). CalRecycle is the agency designated to oversee, manage, and track California’s 92 million tons of waste generated each year. CalRecycle provides grants and loans to help cities, counties, businesses, and organizations meet the state’s waste reduction, reuse, and recycling goals. CalRecycle promotes a sustainable environment in which these resources are not wasted, but can be reused or recycled. In addition to many programs and incentives, CalRecycle promotes the use of new technologies to divert resources away from landfills. CalRecycle is responsible for ensuring that waste management programs are carried out primarily through local enforcement agencies.

The CIWMA is the result of two pieces of legislation, AB 939 and Senate Bill 1322. The CIWMA was intended to minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of through transformation and land disposal by requiring all cities and counties to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000.

The 50 percent diversion requirement is measured in terms of per-capita disposal expressed as pounds per day per resident and per employee. The per-capita disposal and goal measurement system uses an actual disposal measurement based on population and disposal rates reported by disposal facilities, and it evaluates program implementation efforts.

Page 136 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

El Dorado County

The El Dorado County General Plan contains goals, objectives, and policies for waste management as described below.

Waste Management

Goal 5.5 Solid Waste. A safe, effective and efficient system for the collection and processing of recyclable and transformable materials and for the disposal of residual solid wastes which cannot otherwise be recycled or transformed.

• Objective 5.5.1 Integrated Waste Management Program. Comply with El Dorado County Integrated Waste Management program which complies with the intent and requirements of the California Public Resources Code, Division 30, Waste Management.

• Objective 5.5.2: Recycling, Transformation, And Disposal Facilities. Ensure that there is adequate capacity for solid waste processing, recycling, transformation, and disposal to serve existing and future users in the County.

. Policy 5.5.2.1 Concurrent with the approval of new development, evidence will be required that capacity exists within the solid waste system for the processing, recycling, transformation, and disposal of solid waste.

. Policy 5.5.2.2 Facility sites shall be protected from the encroachment of sensitive and/or incompatible land uses.

. Policy 5.5.2.3 The County shall adopt a Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance requiring that a minimum of 50 percent of the debris from construction and demolition projects be reused or recycled. The County shall encourage a higher rate of diversion.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures a, b, Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable c, e) Regional Water Quality Control Board; 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 impacts; require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts; or 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?

The proposed project would not generate any wastewater or require construction of any wastewater or water treatment facilities. The proposed project would not create new stormwater runoff, requiring new or expanded stormwater runoff facilities, and it would not require any wastewater services. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on wastewater or stormwater facilities.

Page 137 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Potential impacts on water supply were addressed in the 2015 FERC EA. The proposed project would require only minimal water during construction (i.e., concrete mixing, road cleaning) and would not require a substantial long-term water supply as it would not add housing or any consumptive use and therefore would not require new or expanded water entitlements. The project would, however, continue to use UARP water for recreation and habitat. Under the UARP license, the proposed project would be required to provide minimum flows and boating flows, below Slab Creek Dam. Instead of spilling water over the dam, the proposed project would release water downstream from the dam through the New Slab Creek Powerhouse or the boating flow release valve. The water would then flow downstream to the PG&E Chili Bar hydroelectric power development and ultimately to Folsom Reservoir. Therefore, the project would use water but would have not alter the amount of water that would flow downstream for consumptive use and would have less than significant impacts on water supply by requiring new or expanded water entitlements. f, g) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs; or comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

The project would not generate substantial volumes of solid waste. SMUD would use excavated materials from the powerhouse foundation and materials from the mouth of Iowa Canyon Creek as fill for the yard at the powerhouse site and also as a source of gravel to be added to SFAR, if sufficient material is available. Excavated material not used on site would be disposed of off-site along with construction-related waste. Some material would be hauled and disposed at Kiefer Landfill or another regional landfill; materials that could be used in future project would be hauled to a storage yard permitted for such use. However, the amount of construction-related waste would be limited to packaging for project components and equipment and solid waste generated by construction workers. Kiefer Landfill has plans to operate until 2064 and has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed project’s small construction disposal needs. Furthermore, construction contractors would be required to comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including recycling requirements. Subsequent recreational use would not differ substantially from existing uses and therefore would not generate substantial additional solid waste. Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts on landfills and solid waste disposal would be less than significant.

Page 138 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Less-Than- Significant Potentially with Less-Than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation Impact Impact 3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Would the project: 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 wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal 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?

Impacts and Mitigation Measures 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 wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

As described in Section 3.4, “Biological Resources,” the proposed project’s impacts on special- status species, wetlands, and riparian habitat would be less than significant. As described in Section 3.5, “Cultural Resources,” the proposed project’s impacts on archaeological and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant and there would be no impacts on historical resources.

The proposed project would comply with design and standard environmental requirements to minimize potential impacts (e.g., a cofferdam would be used to isolate the construction site from the river). The project area is in a steep, rock-faced canyon with no historic structures. The proposed project includes several measures that are designed to improve the quality of the environment, restore a SFAR tributary to a more natural state, and expand fish habitat. Thus,

Page 139 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015 because SMUD would include the design and mitigation measures described in this IS/MND, the 2015 FERC EA, and prior environmental commitments for the UARP, and because SMUD would obtain all necessary permits prior to construction and implement and abide by all permit conditions, the proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. The proposed project’s overall impact on the quality of the environment would be less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?

All of the potentially significant impacts identified in this IS/MND would be mitigated to less than significant, and the proposed project would not result in impacts that would be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The potential for cumulative impacts would be inherently limited because the project area is in a deeply incised canyon in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Furthermore, SMUD would minimize the project’s impacts using a number of measures in coordination with FERC (e.g., transporting workers to the project area via vanpool from a staging area in Camino).

The 2008 CEQA Supplemental Analysis completed by SMUD for the UARP relicensing addressed the environmental impacts of the UARP considered together with the Iowa Hill Development and the Chili Bar Project immediately downstream. All environmental impacts but three were determined to be less than significant with implementation of adopted mitigation measures and FERC license requirements. The three potentially significant impacts were from the loss of 141 acres of upland habitat of special-status wildlife species, impacts on cultural resources from ground-disturbing activities, and blasting-related noise from construction of the Iowa Hill Development tunnel system. Because there are no other existing or planned projects in the vicinity and because the proposed project does not include substantial removal of upland habitat, or blasting or noise impacts beyond typical construction levels, these impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. There are no known cultural resources within the project footprint or in the project area and therefore the proposed project’s potential impacts on cultural resources would be less than cumulatively considerable.

No concurrent projects are in the immediate project vicinity that would overlap in terms of community impacts, such as aesthetics or noise, and no impacts would occur on several CEQA resources (i.e., agriculture, land use, minerals, and population and housing). Impacts on natural resources (i.e., air and water quality) and the potential for soil erosion would be addressed by standard regulatory requirements. Therefore, because of the small area that would be affected by the proposed project and its isolated location, the proposed project’s impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

The proposed project would have a potentially significant noise impact on human beings. This impact would be reduced with incorporation of the mitigation measures discussed in the noise section. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to less than significant. No other direct or indirect impacts on human beings were identified in this IS/MND.

Page 140 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

4.1 Sacramento Municipal Utility District—Lead Agency

Jose Bodipo-Memba, Environmental Management Supervisor

4.2 Environmental Consultants AECOM

Petra Unger—Project Director

Peter Boucher—Project Manager, Hydrology and Water Quality

George Lu—Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

David Bise—-Biological Resources

Madeline Bowen—Cultural Resources

Garry Maurath—Geology and Soils

Suzanne McFerran—Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Issa Mahmodi—Noise

Wendy Copeland—Paleontological Resources

Nick Mitrovich—Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems

Roy Leidy—Technical Review

Tom Keegan—Technical Review

Charisse Case and Kristine Olsen—Document Specialists

Phi Ngo—GIS

Julie Nichols and Beth Duffey—Technical Editors

Douglas Environmental

Doug Brown—Transportation and Traffic

Page 141 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 142 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

5.0 REFERENCES

Chapter 1, “Introduction”

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2015. Environmental Assessment. New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve. http://elibrary.ferc.gov/IDMWS/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13623756.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service. 2008 (March). Final Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower License: Upper American River Hydroelectric Project-FERC Project No. 2101-084-California; Chili Bar Hydroelectric Project-FERC Project No. 2155-024-California.

FERC. See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

FERC and USFS. See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2014 (August). Final Application for Amendment of License for the Upper American River Project FERC Project NO. P-2101-096 to Authorize Construction of the New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve.

SMUD. See Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

Chapter 2, “Project Description”

APLIC and USFWS. See The Edison Electric Institute’s Avian Powerline Interaction Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Edison Electric Institute’s Avian Powerline Interaction Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Avian Protection Plan (APP) Guidelines.

EDCAQMD. See El Dorado County Air Quality Management District.

El Dorado County Air Quality Management District. 2002. Guide to Air Quality Assessment. Available: http://www.edcgov.us/Government/AirQualityManagement/Guide_to_Air_ Quality_Assessment.aspx. Accessed May 11, 2015.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2014 (July). Order Issuing New License, Upper American River Project, Project No. 2101-084.

FERC. See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2008 (August). Final CEQA Supplemental Analysis to the FERC/USFS Final Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower License and Analysis of Iowa Hill Joint Advisory Committee Comments.

Page 143 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

______. 2014 (August). Final Application for Amendment of License for the Upper American River Project FERC Project NO. P-2101-096 to Authorize Construction of the New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve.

SMUD. See Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

Chapter 3, “Environmental Checklist”

AAR. See All About Rivers.

All About Rivers. 2015. Slab Creek Whitewater Kayaking Trip on the South Fork American River. Available: http://www.allaboutrivers.com/rivers-in-california/slab-creek- RUN496.html. Accessed April 24, 2015.

APLIC and USFWS. See Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

ARB. See California Air Resources Board.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Avian Protection Plan (APP) Guidelines. The Avian Power Line Interaction Committee membership includes over 50 utilities, Edison Electric Institute, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Electric Power Research Institute, National Rural Electrical Cooperative Association, and Rural Utilities Service.

BLM. See Bureau of Land Management.

Boyd, A. 1998. The Archaeology of CA-Eld-263 Sly Park, California. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Sacramento.

Bureau of Land Management. 2004. The South Fork American River–A Management Plan. Available: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/folsom/plans.Par.40354. File.dat/CD_Final_SoForkAmPlan7_04.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2015.

CAL FIRE. See California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

CalEPA. See California Environmental Protection Agency.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2013. CalEEMod. Available: http://www.caleemod.com/. Accessed April 29, 2015.

California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2015.

———. 2013. Mobile Source Emission Inventory–Current Methods and Data. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/modeling.htm. Accessed April 29, 2015.

Page 144 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

———. 2014a (July). 2012 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Emission Inventory Submittal for the 2008 Federal 8-Hour Ozone Standard. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2012iv/2012iv.htm. Accessed May 28, 2015.

———. 2014b. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_ scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2015.

California Building Standards Commission. 2013. California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Available: http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/Free_Resources/ 2013California/13Green/13Green_main.html. Accessed September 10, 2014.

California Department of Conservation. 2000. Areas More Likely to Contain Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in Western El Dorado County, California. Available: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/ofr_2000-002_Report.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2015.

———. 2004. A Guide to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp_guide_2004.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2015.

———. 2015. California Important Farmland Finder. Available: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html. Accessed April 15, 2015.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. Del Norte County Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Map. Available: http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_ eldorado.php. Accessed April 27, 2015.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2014. American River Rafting Permits. Available: http://www.american-rivers.com/permits.htm. Accessed April 24, 2015.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2015. EnviroStor GIS Database. Available: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/mapfull.asp?global_id=09340001. Accessed April 29, 2015.

California Department of Transportation. 2004. Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. Sacramento, CA.

California Division of Mines and Geology. 2003. OFR 2000-03: Mineral Land Classification of El Dorado County, California.

California Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Cortese List. Available: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/CurrentList.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2015.

California Geological Survey. 2008. Probabilistic Ground Motion Interpolator. Available: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/PSHA/psha_interpolator.html.

Page 145 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

———. 2012 (September 21). Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Available: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm.

California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. 2015. Business Plan/EPCRA 312. http://www.caloes.ca.gov/HazardousMaterials/Pages/Business-Plan.aspx. Accessed April 7, 2015.

California Public Utilities Commission. 2014. California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). Available: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Development/Renewables/. Accessed April 29, 2015.

Cal OES. See California Governor's Office of Emergency Services

Cal Recycle. 2015. Sacramento County Landfill (Kiefer) (34-AA-0001). Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/34-AA-0001/Detail. Accessed April 15, 2015.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

Camino Union School District. 2015. Camino Union School District Website. Available: http://www.caminoschool.org/. Accessed April 24, 2015.

CAPCOA. See California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.

CDC. See California Department of Conservation.

CDMG. See California Division of Mines and Geology.

CGS. See California Geological Survey.

CH2M HILL. 2008. Iowa Hill Pumped-Storage Development Transportation Route Technical Report. Prepared for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

City of Placerville. 2015. Placerville Parks. Available: http://www.cityofplacerville.org/depts/ parks/parks/default.asp. Accessed April 24, 2015.

CPUC. See California Public Utilities Commission.

CUSD. See Camino Union School District.

DTSC. See California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

EDUHSD. See El Dorado Union High School District.

El Dorado County. 2004. General Plan. Available: http://www.edcgov.us/Government/Planning/ Adopted_General_Plan.aspx. Accessed April 24, 2015.

———. 2009. Zoning Maps: Slate Mountain. Available: http://www.edcgov.us/Government/ Planning/Zoning_Maps.aspx. Accessed April 15, 2015.

Page 146 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

———. 2012. Parks and Trails Master Plan. Available: http://www.edcgov.us/Government/Parks/MasterPlan.aspx. Accessed April 24, 2015.

———. 2013. El Dorado County River Management Plan 2013 Annual Report. Available: http://www.edcgov.us/Government/EMD/Rivers/Annual_River_Use_Report.aspx. Accessed April 24, 2015.

———. 2014 (December). El Dorado County General Plan, Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element. Conservation and Open Space Element. Parks and Recreation Element. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 19, 2004, Resolution Number 235-2004; amended December 2014. Placerville, CA.

El Dorado County Planning Department. 2004 (July 19). El Dorado County General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element. Amended January 2009. Available: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/Planning/Adopted_General_Plan.aspx. Accessed April 2014.

El Dorado County Transportation Commission. 2010 (November 9). El Dorado County Bicycle Transportation Plan. Available: http://www.edctc.org/3/CountyBikePlan2010.html. Accessed April 2014.

El Dorado County Water Agency. 2014. West Slope Update: Water Resource Development and Management Plan. Available: http://www.edcgov.us/water/Water_Management.aspx. Accessed April 24, 2015.

El Dorado County Weather. 2012. The Climate of El Dorado County. Available: http://www.eldoradocountyweather.com/climate.html. Accessed July 3, 2012.

El Dorado Sheriff’s Office. 2014. Annual Report 2014. Available: http://www.edcgov.us/sheriff/. Accessed April 24, 2014.

El Dorado Union High School District. 2015. Our District High Schools and Programs. Available: http://www.eduhsd.k12.ca.us/EDUHSD%20Schools.htm. Accessed April 24, 2015.

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 2015. Environmental Assessment. New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve. http://elibrary.ferc.gov/IDMWS/common/opennat.asp?fileID=13623756.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service. 2008 (March). Final Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower License: Upper American River Hydroelectric Project-FERC Project No. 2101-084-California; Chili Bar Hydroelectric Project-FERC Project No. 2155-024-California.

Federal Highway Administration. 2011. Physical Techniques to Reduce Noise Impacts. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_compatible_planning/ federal_approach/audible_landscape/al04.cfm. Accessed March 27 and April 8, 2015.

Page 147 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Federal Register. 2001 (January 4). Urban Wildland Interface Communities within the Vicinity of Federal Lands that Are at High Risk from Wildfire. Notice posted by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Vol. 66, Number 3, pages 751–777.

Federal Transit Administration. 2006 (May). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Washington, DC: Office of Planning and Environment.

FERC. See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

FERC and USFS. See Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and U.S. Forest Service.

FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration.

Fredrickson, D. A. 1973. Spatial and Cultural Units in Central California Archaeology. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology, essays by J. A. Bennyhoff and D. A. Fredrickson, edited by R. E. Hughes, contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No 52, Berkeley.

———. 1974. Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A view from the North Coast Ranges. Journal of California Anthropology 1 (1):41–54.

———. 1993. Archaeological Taxonomy in Central California Reconsidered. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology, edited by R. E. Hughes, contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 52, Berkeley.

FTA. See Federal Transit Administration.

Helicopter Association. 1993. Fly Neighborly Guide. Available: http://www.juneau.org/tourism2/ documents90-99/fly_neighborly.pdf. Accessed April 2015.

ICF International. 2014 (March). El Dorado County TGPA/ZOU Draft Program EIR. Prepared for the County of El Dorado. SCH# 2012052074. Available: http://www.edcgov.us/Government/LongRangePlanning/LandUse/TGPA- ZOU_Main.aspx. Accessed April 2014.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Climate Change 2013, The Physical Science Basis. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. Accessed April 29, 2015.

IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Jackson, R. J., and H. S. Ballard. 1999. Once Upon a Micron, A Story of Archaeological Site CA-ELD-145 near Camino, El Dorado County, California. Prepared for Caltrans District 03, Marysville. Prepared by Pacific Legacy, Inc., Cameron Park, CA.

Jackson, R. J., T. Jackson, C. Miksicek, K. Roper, and D. Simons. 1994. Framework for Archaeological Research and Management: National Forests of the North-Central Sierra Nevada. Sacramento, CA: Biosystems Analysis, Inc.

Page 148 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Jennings, C. W., and W. A. Bryant. 2010. Fault Activity Map of California.

Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, DC.

LSC Transportation Consultants. 2003 (November 10). El Dorado County Short Range and Long Range Transit Plan Study. Available: http://www.edctc.org/3/Short-Long-Range TransitPlan.html. Accessed April 2014.

———. 2008 (July 18). Western El Dorado County 2008 Short Range Transit Plan. Available: http://www.edctc.org/3/Short-Long-RangeTransitPlan.html. Accessed April 2014.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2004. Understanding Soil Risks and Hazards. Available: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_019308.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2015.

———. 2015. Custom Soil Resource Report for El Dorado Area, California. Available: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed May 4, 2015.

NRCS. See Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Office of Surface Mining. 1986. Blasting Performance Standards. Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 816. Available: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?mc=true&node= pt30.3.816&rgn=div5. Accessed April 27, 2015.

OSM. See Office of Surface Mining.

Placerville Union School District. 2015. General Information. Available: http://www.pusdk8.us/Our%20Schools/Schools.htm. Accessed April 24, 2015.

Pollock Pines Elementary School District. 2015. Our Schools. Available: http://www.ppesd.org/. Accessed April 24, 2015.

PPESD. See Pollock Pines Elementary School District.

PUSD. See Placerville Union School District.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 2014a. Chapter 4: Operational Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions. Available: http://airquality.org/ceqa/ cequguideupdate/Ch4OperationalCAPsFINAL.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2015.

———. 2014b. Resolution No. 2014-028: Recommended Greenhouse Gas Emissions Thresholds of Significance.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2014 (August). Final Application for Amendment of License for the Upper American River Project FERC Project NO. P-2101-096 to

Page 149 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Authorize Construction of the New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve.

SMAQMD. See Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

SMUD. See Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

Sridharan, A. and Prakash, K. 2000. Classification Procedures for Expansive Soils. Available: http://www.uea.ac.uk/~e680/gmmc/env/env-2e1y/ice/gt_2000_04f.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2015.

State Parks. See California Department of Parks and Recreation.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2015. GeoTracker. Available: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/#. Accessed April 27, 2015.

Stillwater Sciences. 2012. New Slab Creek Powerhouse Project Draft Bat Study Plan. Prepared for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

Stillwater Sciences and AECOM. 2012. Sacramento Municipal Utility District Upper American River Project: Cultural Resources Inventory for the Lower Slab Creek Project. Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Prepared in Davis and Sacramento, CA.

SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.

Tremaine, K., and R. J. Jackson. 1994. Archaeological Investigations at the False Walrus Site (FS 05-03-56-730). Prepared for the U.S. Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest, Placerville, CA.

———. 1995. The Cleveland Fire Archaeological Site Evaluation Program of the Eldorado National Forest. Volume 1. Prepared for the U.S. Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest, Placerville, CA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974 (March). Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Washington, DC.

———. 2015. Emission Factors and AP 42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/. Accessed April 29, 2015.

U.S. Forest Service. 1988. Eldorado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region. Available: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/eldorado/land management/planning. Accessed April 24, 2015.

USFS. See U.S. Forest Service.

Page 150 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

Wagner, D. L., C. W. Jennings, T. L. Bedrossian, and E. J. Bortugno. 1987. Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle. Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 1A. California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, CA.

Wilson, N. L., and A. H. Towne. 1978. Nisenan. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Page 151 of 178

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.

Page 152 of 178

APPENDIX A: NOTICE OF INTENT

Page A-1 Page A-2

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project July 2015

Source: AECOM 2015 Figure 1 Regional Location

Page A-3

New Slab Creek Powerhouse and Boating Flow Release Valve Project July 2015

Source: AECOM 2015 Figure 2 Project Site and Vicinity

Page A-5

APPENDIX B: AIR EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

Slab Creek Construction El Dorado-Mountain County County, Summer

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.15 Acre 0.15 6,534.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Rural Wind Speed (m/s) 2.7 Precipitation Freq (Days) 70

Climate Zone 1 Operational Year 2017

Utility Company

CO2 Intensity 0 CH4 Intensity 0 N2O Intensity 0 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - PD Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Off-road Equipment - cconstruction assumptions Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Trips and VMT - all on-road emissions modeled off-model Demolition - PD Grading - FD modeled off-model

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Interior 9801 0

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 24.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 24.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 168.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 312.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 24.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 24.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 36.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/17/2017 5/20/2017

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/16/2015 8/17/2015

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/13/2015 9/14/2015

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/11/2015 10/12/2015

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/24/2016 4/25/2016

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/23/2017 4/24/2017

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/21/2017 4/24/2017

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 226.00 208.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 226.00 208.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 125.00 89.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 75.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 75.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 226.00 208.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 157.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 157.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 157.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 157.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 174.00 162.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 167.00 196.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 167.00 196.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 100.00 83.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 100.00 83.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 100.00 83.00

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.78 0.52

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.74 0.50

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.74 0.50 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 2.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 2.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 6.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 6.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 6.00

tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2017

tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 5.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 10.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 0.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 18.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 0.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

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

2015 1.1428 11.3115 7.3812 0.0134 0.1336 0.6609 0.7886 0.0355 0.6080 0.6419 0.0000 1,331.840 1,331.840 0.3003 0.0000 1,338.146 7 7 6

2016 1.2605 10.4993 9.0017 0.0152 0.2358 0.6367 0.8725 0.0626 0.6159 0.6786 0.0000 1,449.870 1,449.870 0.2415 0.0000 1,454.942 8 8 2

2017 1.1337 9.5624 8.7309 0.0152 0.2358 0.5622 0.7980 0.0626 0.5438 0.6064 0.0000 1,431.796 1,431.796 0.3217 0.0000 1,438.553 6 6 0

Total 3.5370 31.3731 25.1138 0.0438 0.6051 1.8599 2.4591 0.1608 1.7677 1.9268 0.0000 4,213.508 4,213.508 0.8635 0.0000 4,231.641 1 1 8

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

2015 1.1428 11.3115 7.3812 0.0134 0.1336 0.6609 0.7886 0.0355 0.6080 0.6419 0.0000 1,331.840 1,331.840 0.3003 0.0000 1,338.146 7 7 6

2016 1.2605 10.4993 9.0017 0.0152 0.2358 0.6367 0.8725 0.0626 0.6159 0.6786 0.0000 1,449.870 1,449.870 0.2415 0.0000 1,454.942 8 8 2

2017 1.1337 9.5624 8.7309 0.0152 0.2358 0.5622 0.7980 0.0626 0.5438 0.6064 0.0000 1,431.796 1,431.796 0.3217 0.0000 1,438.553 6 6 0

Total 3.5370 31.3731 25.1138 0.0438 0.6051 1.8599 2.4591 0.1608 1.7677 1.9268 0.0000 4,213.508 4,213.508 0.8635 0.0000 4,231.641 1 1 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

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.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

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 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Energy 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

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 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

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 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Energy 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

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 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

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 Iowa Creek Config-Bridge Paving 7/6/2015 8/15/2015 6 36

2 Road Imp-Transmission Building Construction 8/17/2015 9/12/2015 6 24

3 Adit Connection Building Construction 9/14/2015 10/10/2015 6 24

4 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve Building Construction 10/12/2015 4/23/2016 6 168

5 Powerhouse-Power Line Building Construction 4/25/2016 4/22/2017 6 312

6 SFAR Gravel Augment Building Construction 4/24/2017 5/20/2017 6 24

7 SFAR Habitat Impr Building Construction 4/24/2017 5/20/2017 6 24

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0

Acres of Paving: 0

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)

OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

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

Iowa Creek Config-Bridge Cranes 1 2.00 208 0.29

Iowa Creek Config-Bridge Excavators 1 6.00 157 0.38

Iowa Creek Config-Bridge Pavers 1 6.00 89 0.42

Iowa Creek Config-Bridge Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 75 0.37

Road Imp-Transmission Cranes 1 2.00 208 0.29

Road Imp-Transmission Graders 1 4.00 162 0.41

Road Imp-Transmission Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 75 0.37

Adit Connection Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.50

Adit Connection Other Material Handling Equipment 1 6.00 196 0.40

Adit Connection Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 6.00 83 0.40

Penstock-Boat Flow Valve Other Material Handling Equipment 1 6.00 196 0.40

Penstock-Boat Flow Valve Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 6.00 83 0.40

Penstock-Boat Flow Valve Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 0.00 97 0.37

Powerhouse-Power Line Cranes 1 2.00 208 0.29

Powerhouse-Power Line Crushing/Proc. Equipment 1 4.00 85 0.52

Powerhouse-Power Line Excavators 1 4.00 157 0.38

Powerhouse-Power Line Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.50

Powerhouse-Power Line Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 4.00 83 0.40

SFAR Gravel Augment Excavators 1 8.00 157 0.38

SFAR Habitat Impr Excavators 1 8.00 157 0.38

Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

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

Iowa Creek Config- 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Bridge Road Imp- 3 5.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Transmission Adit Connection 3 10.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Penstock-Boat Flow 2 0.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Valve Powerhouse-Power 5 18.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Line SFAR Gravel 1 0.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Augment SFAR Habitat Impr 1 0.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

3.2 Iowa Creek Config-Bridge - 2015 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 1.0187 10.5898 6.4852 9.3500e- 0.6599 0.6599 0.6071 0.6071 981.8717 981.8717 0.2931 988.0274 003

Paving 0.0109 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.0297 10.5898 6.4852 9.3500e- 0.6599 0.6599 0.6071 0.6071 981.8717 981.8717 0.2931 988.0274 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.2 Iowa Creek Config-Bridge - 2015 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 0.0590 0.0689 0.8960 1.6200e- 0.1277 1.0300e- 0.1288 0.0339 9.4000e- 0.0348 137.9338 137.9338 7.1500e- 138.0840 003 003 004 003

Total 0.0590 0.0689 0.8960 1.6200e- 0.1277 1.0300e- 0.1288 0.0339 9.4000e- 0.0348 137.9338 137.9338 7.1500e- 138.0840 003 003 004 003

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 1.0187 10.5898 6.4852 9.3500e- 0.6599 0.6599 0.6071 0.6071 0.0000 981.8717 981.8717 0.2931 988.0274 003

Paving 0.0109 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.0297 10.5898 6.4852 9.3500e- 0.6599 0.6599 0.6071 0.6071 0.0000 981.8717 981.8717 0.2931 988.0274 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.2 Iowa Creek Config-Bridge - 2015 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 0.0590 0.0689 0.8960 1.6200e- 0.1277 1.0300e- 0.1288 0.0339 9.4000e- 0.0348 137.9338 137.9338 7.1500e- 138.0840 003 003 004 003

Total 0.0590 0.0689 0.8960 1.6200e- 0.1277 1.0300e- 0.1288 0.0339 9.4000e- 0.0348 137.9338 137.9338 7.1500e- 138.0840 003 003 004 003

3.3 Road Imp-Transmission - 2015 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 0.8741 9.0765 4.4309 6.0100e- 0.5328 0.5328 0.4902 0.4902 632.0786 632.0786 0.1887 636.0413 003

Total 0.8741 9.0765 4.4309 6.0100e- 0.5328 0.5328 0.4902 0.4902 632.0786 632.0786 0.1887 636.0413 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.3 Road Imp-Transmission - 2015 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 0.0141 0.0930 0.2006 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5300e- 7.3600e- 1.6600e- 1.4000e- 3.0600e- 18.3510 18.3510 1.7000e- 18.3545 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0295 0.0344 0.4480 8.1000e- 0.0639 5.2000e- 0.0644 0.0169 4.7000e- 0.0174 68.9669 68.9669 3.5800e- 69.0420 004 004 004 003

Total 0.0436 0.1275 0.6486 9.9000e- 0.0697 2.0500e- 0.0717 0.0186 1.8700e- 0.0205 87.3179 87.3179 3.7500e- 87.3965 004 003 003 003

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 0.8741 9.0765 4.4309 6.0100e- 0.5328 0.5328 0.4902 0.4902 0.0000 632.0786 632.0786 0.1887 636.0413 003

Total 0.8741 9.0765 4.4309 6.0100e- 0.5328 0.5328 0.4902 0.4902 0.0000 632.0786 632.0786 0.1887 636.0413 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.3 Road Imp-Transmission - 2015 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 0.0141 0.0930 0.2006 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5300e- 7.3600e- 1.6600e- 1.4000e- 3.0600e- 18.3510 18.3510 1.7000e- 18.3545 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0295 0.0344 0.4480 8.1000e- 0.0639 5.2000e- 0.0644 0.0169 4.7000e- 0.0174 68.9669 68.9669 3.5800e- 69.0420 004 004 004 003

Total 0.0436 0.1275 0.6486 9.9000e- 0.0697 2.0500e- 0.0717 0.0186 1.8700e- 0.0205 87.3179 87.3179 3.7500e- 87.3965 004 003 003 003

3.4 Adit Connection - 2015 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 1.0696 11.1496 5.8771 0.0116 0.5804 0.5804 0.5546 0.5546 1,175.556 1,175.556 0.2682 1,181.189 0 0 0

Total 1.0696 11.1496 5.8771 0.0116 0.5804 0.5804 0.5546 0.5546 1,175.556 1,175.556 0.2682 1,181.189 0 0 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.4 Adit Connection - 2015 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 0.0141 0.0930 0.2006 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5300e- 7.3600e- 1.6600e- 1.4000e- 3.0600e- 18.3510 18.3510 1.7000e- 18.3545 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0590 0.0689 0.8960 1.6200e- 0.1277 1.0300e- 0.1288 0.0339 9.4000e- 0.0348 137.9338 137.9338 7.1500e- 138.0840 003 003 004 003

Total 0.0731 0.1619 1.0966 1.8000e- 0.1336 2.5600e- 0.1361 0.0355 2.3400e- 0.0379 156.2847 156.2847 7.3200e- 156.4385 003 003 003 003

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 1.0696 11.1496 5.8771 0.0116 0.5804 0.5804 0.5546 0.5546 0.0000 1,175.556 1,175.556 0.2682 1,181.189 0 0 0

Total 1.0696 11.1496 5.8771 0.0116 0.5804 0.5804 0.5546 0.5546 0.0000 1,175.556 1,175.556 0.2682 1,181.189 0 0 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.4 Adit Connection - 2015 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 0.0141 0.0930 0.2006 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5300e- 7.3600e- 1.6600e- 1.4000e- 3.0600e- 18.3510 18.3510 1.7000e- 18.3545 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0590 0.0689 0.8960 1.6200e- 0.1277 1.0300e- 0.1288 0.0339 9.4000e- 0.0348 137.9338 137.9338 7.1500e- 138.0840 003 003 004 003

Total 0.0731 0.1619 1.0966 1.8000e- 0.1336 2.5600e- 0.1361 0.0355 2.3400e- 0.0379 156.2847 156.2847 7.3200e- 156.4385 003 003 003 003

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2015 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 0.5874 7.6169 3.2852 7.1900e- 0.3234 0.3234 0.2975 0.2975 754.5867 754.5867 0.2253 759.3174 003

Total 0.5874 7.6169 3.2852 7.1900e- 0.3234 0.3234 0.2975 0.2975 754.5867 754.5867 0.2253 759.3174 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2015 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 0.0141 0.0930 0.2006 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5300e- 7.3600e- 1.6600e- 1.4000e- 3.0600e- 18.3510 18.3510 1.7000e- 18.3545 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 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 0.0141 0.0930 0.2006 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5300e- 7.3600e- 1.6600e- 1.4000e- 3.0600e- 18.3510 18.3510 1.7000e- 18.3545 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

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 0.5874 7.6169 3.2852 7.1900e- 0.3234 0.3234 0.2975 0.2975 0.0000 754.5867 754.5867 0.2253 759.3174 003

Total 0.5874 7.6169 3.2852 7.1900e- 0.3234 0.3234 0.2975 0.2975 0.0000 754.5867 754.5867 0.2253 759.3174 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2015 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 0.0141 0.0930 0.2006 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5300e- 7.3600e- 1.6600e- 1.4000e- 3.0600e- 18.3510 18.3510 1.7000e- 18.3545 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 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 0.0141 0.0930 0.2006 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5300e- 7.3600e- 1.6600e- 1.4000e- 3.0600e- 18.3510 18.3510 1.7000e- 18.3545 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2016 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 0.5457 7.0752 3.1712 7.1900e- 0.2895 0.2895 0.2664 0.2664 746.9492 746.9492 0.2253 751.6807 003

Total 0.5457 7.0752 3.1712 7.1900e- 0.2895 0.2895 0.2664 0.2664 746.9492 746.9492 0.2253 751.6807 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2016 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 0.0130 0.0834 0.1892 1.9000e- 5.8500e- 1.2600e- 7.1000e- 1.6600e- 1.1500e- 2.8200e- 18.3757 18.3757 1.5000e- 18.3789 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 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 0.0130 0.0834 0.1892 1.9000e- 5.8500e- 1.2600e- 7.1000e- 1.6600e- 1.1500e- 2.8200e- 18.3757 18.3757 1.5000e- 18.3789 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

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 0.5457 7.0752 3.1712 7.1900e- 0.2895 0.2895 0.2664 0.2664 0.0000 746.9492 746.9492 0.2253 751.6807 003

Total 0.5457 7.0752 3.1712 7.1900e- 0.2895 0.2895 0.2664 0.2664 0.0000 746.9492 746.9492 0.2253 751.6807 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 20 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2016 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 0.0130 0.0834 0.1892 1.9000e- 5.8500e- 1.2600e- 7.1000e- 1.6600e- 1.1500e- 2.8200e- 18.3757 18.3757 1.5000e- 18.3789 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 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 0.0130 0.0834 0.1892 1.9000e- 5.8500e- 1.2600e- 7.1000e- 1.6600e- 1.1500e- 2.8200e- 18.3757 18.3757 1.5000e- 18.3789 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 2016 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 1.1546 10.3061 7.3862 0.0121 0.6337 0.6337 0.6132 0.6132 1,192.293 1,192.293 0.2297 1,197.117 5 5 2

Total 1.1546 10.3061 7.3862 0.0121 0.6337 0.6337 0.6132 0.6132 1,192.293 1,192.293 0.2297 1,197.117 5 5 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 21 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 2016 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 0.0130 0.0834 0.1892 1.9000e- 5.8500e- 1.2600e- 7.1000e- 1.6600e- 1.1500e- 2.8200e- 18.3757 18.3757 1.5000e- 18.3789 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0929 0.1098 1.4263 2.9100e- 0.2299 1.7500e- 0.2317 0.0610 1.6000e- 0.0626 239.2016 239.2016 0.0117 239.4461 003 003 003

Total 0.1059 0.1932 1.6155 3.1000e- 0.2358 3.0100e- 0.2388 0.0626 2.7500e- 0.0654 257.5773 257.5773 0.0118 257.8250 003 003 003

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 1.1546 10.3061 7.3862 0.0121 0.6337 0.6337 0.6132 0.6132 0.0000 1,192.293 1,192.293 0.2297 1,197.117 5 5 2

Total 1.1546 10.3061 7.3862 0.0121 0.6337 0.6337 0.6132 0.6132 0.0000 1,192.293 1,192.293 0.2297 1,197.117 5 5 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 22 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 2016 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 0.0130 0.0834 0.1892 1.9000e- 5.8500e- 1.2600e- 7.1000e- 1.6600e- 1.1500e- 2.8200e- 18.3757 18.3757 1.5000e- 18.3789 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0929 0.1098 1.4263 2.9100e- 0.2299 1.7500e- 0.2317 0.0610 1.6000e- 0.0626 239.2016 239.2016 0.0117 239.4461 003 003 003

Total 0.1059 0.1932 1.6155 3.1000e- 0.2358 3.0100e- 0.2388 0.0626 2.7500e- 0.0654 257.5773 257.5773 0.0118 257.8250 003 003 003

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 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 1.0413 9.3877 7.2906 0.0121 0.5594 0.5594 0.5412 0.5412 1,183.716 1,183.716 0.2225 1,188.389 7 7 5

Total 1.0413 9.3877 7.2906 0.0121 0.5594 0.5594 0.5412 0.5412 1,183.716 1,183.716 0.2225 1,188.389 7 7 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 23 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 2017 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 0.0117 0.0773 0.1792 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.0900e- 6.9500e- 1.6700e- 1.0000e- 2.6700e- 18.3196 18.3196 1.4000e- 18.3226 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0807 0.0974 1.2610 2.9100e- 0.2299 1.6700e- 0.2316 0.0610 1.5400e- 0.0625 229.7604 229.7604 0.0106 229.9824 003 003 003

Total 0.0924 0.1747 1.4402 3.1000e- 0.2358 2.7600e- 0.2385 0.0626 2.5400e- 0.0652 248.0800 248.0800 0.0107 248.3050 003 003 003

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 1.0413 9.3877 7.2906 0.0121 0.5594 0.5594 0.5412 0.5412 0.0000 1,183.716 1,183.716 0.2225 1,188.389 7 7 5

Total 1.0413 9.3877 7.2906 0.0121 0.5594 0.5594 0.5412 0.5412 0.0000 1,183.716 1,183.716 0.2225 1,188.389 7 7 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 24 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 2017 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 0.0117 0.0773 0.1792 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.0900e- 6.9500e- 1.6700e- 1.0000e- 2.6700e- 18.3196 18.3196 1.4000e- 18.3226 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0807 0.0974 1.2610 2.9100e- 0.2299 1.6700e- 0.2316 0.0610 1.5400e- 0.0625 229.7604 229.7604 0.0106 229.9824 003 003 003

Total 0.0924 0.1747 1.4402 3.1000e- 0.2358 2.7600e- 0.2385 0.0626 2.5400e- 0.0652 248.0800 248.0800 0.0107 248.3050 003 003 003

3.7 SFAR Gravel Augment - 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 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003

Total 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 25 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.7 SFAR Gravel Augment - 2017 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 0.0117 0.0773 0.1792 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.0900e- 6.9500e- 1.6700e- 1.0000e- 2.6700e- 18.3196 18.3196 1.4000e- 18.3226 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 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 0.0117 0.0773 0.1792 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.0900e- 6.9500e- 1.6700e- 1.0000e- 2.6700e- 18.3196 18.3196 1.4000e- 18.3226 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

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 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 0.0000 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003

Total 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 0.0000 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 26 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.7 SFAR Gravel Augment - 2017 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 0.0117 0.0773 0.1792 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.0900e- 6.9500e- 1.6700e- 1.0000e- 2.6700e- 18.3196 18.3196 1.4000e- 18.3226 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 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 0.0117 0.0773 0.1792 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.0900e- 6.9500e- 1.6700e- 1.0000e- 2.6700e- 18.3196 18.3196 1.4000e- 18.3226 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

3.8 SFAR Habitat Impr - 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 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003

Total 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 27 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.8 SFAR Habitat Impr - 2017 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 0.0117 0.0773 0.1792 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.0900e- 6.9500e- 1.6700e- 1.0000e- 2.6700e- 18.3196 18.3196 1.4000e- 18.3226 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 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 0.0117 0.0773 0.1792 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.0900e- 6.9500e- 1.6700e- 1.0000e- 2.6700e- 18.3196 18.3196 1.4000e- 18.3226 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

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 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 0.0000 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003

Total 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 0.0000 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 28 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

3.8 SFAR Habitat Impr - 2017 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 0.0117 0.0773 0.1792 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.0900e- 6.9500e- 1.6700e- 1.0000e- 2.6700e- 18.3196 18.3196 1.4000e- 18.3226 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 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 0.0117 0.0773 0.1792 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.0900e- 6.9500e- 1.6700e- 1.0000e- 2.6700e- 18.3196 18.3196 1.4000e- 18.3226 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 29 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

4.2 Trip Summary Information

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

Other Asphalt Surfaces 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 Asphalt Surfaces 14.70 6.60 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.456704 0.078514 0.189610 0.161545 0.075051 0.010626 0.010499 0.000987 0.001369 0.000777 0.008668 0.000749 0.004900

5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

NaturalGas 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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 30 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

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 Asphalt 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 Surfaces

Total 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

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 Asphalt 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 Surfaces

Total 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

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 31 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

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 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Unmitigated 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

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 0.0104 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.1398 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Total 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 32 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:08 PM

6.2 Area by SubCategory 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 0.0104 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.1398 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Total 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

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 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

Slab Creek Construction El Dorado-Mountain County County, Winter

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.15 Acre 0.15 6,534.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Rural Wind Speed (m/s) 2.7 Precipitation Freq (Days) 70

Climate Zone 1 Operational Year 2017

Utility Company

CO2 Intensity 0 CH4 Intensity 0 N2O Intensity 0 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - PD Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Off-road Equipment - cconstruction assumptions Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Trips and VMT - all on-road emissions modeled off-model Demolition - PD Grading - FD modeled off-model

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Interior 9801 0

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 24.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 24.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 168.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 312.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 24.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 24.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 36.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/17/2017 5/20/2017

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/16/2015 8/17/2015

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/13/2015 9/14/2015

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/11/2015 10/12/2015

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/24/2016 4/25/2016

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/23/2017 4/24/2017

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/21/2017 4/24/2017

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 226.00 208.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 226.00 208.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 125.00 89.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 75.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 75.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 226.00 208.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 157.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 157.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 157.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 157.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 174.00 162.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 167.00 196.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 167.00 196.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 100.00 83.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 100.00 83.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 100.00 83.00

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.78 0.52

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.74 0.50

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.74 0.50 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 2.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 2.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 6.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 6.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 6.00

tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2017

tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 5.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 10.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 0.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 18.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 0.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

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

2015 1.1426 11.3356 7.3041 0.0133 0.1336 0.6609 0.7886 0.0355 0.6080 0.6419 0.0000 1,316.641 1,316.641 0.3003 0.0000 1,322.947 1 1 0

2016 1.2566 10.5325 8.9525 0.0149 0.2358 0.6368 0.8725 0.0626 0.6160 0.6786 0.0000 1,423.594 1,423.594 0.2415 0.0000 1,428.665 4 4 9

2017 1.1292 9.5920 8.6806 0.0149 0.2358 0.5622 0.7980 0.0626 0.5438 0.6064 0.0000 1,406.504 1,406.504 0.3217 0.0000 1,413.260 0 0 6

Total 3.5284 31.4601 24.9372 0.0430 0.6051 1.8599 2.4592 0.1608 1.7678 1.9269 0.0000 4,146.739 4,146.739 0.8635 0.0000 4,164.873 5 5 5

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

2015 1.1426 11.3356 7.3041 0.0133 0.1336 0.6609 0.7886 0.0355 0.6080 0.6419 0.0000 1,316.641 1,316.641 0.3003 0.0000 1,322.947 1 1 0

2016 1.2566 10.5325 8.9525 0.0149 0.2358 0.6368 0.8725 0.0626 0.6160 0.6786 0.0000 1,423.594 1,423.594 0.2415 0.0000 1,428.665 4 4 9

2017 1.1292 9.5920 8.6806 0.0149 0.2358 0.5622 0.7980 0.0626 0.5438 0.6064 0.0000 1,406.504 1,406.504 0.3217 0.0000 1,413.260 0 0 6

Total 3.5284 31.4601 24.9372 0.0430 0.6051 1.8599 2.4592 0.1608 1.7678 1.9269 0.0000 4,146.739 4,146.739 0.8635 0.0000 4,164.873 5 5 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

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.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

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 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Energy 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

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 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

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 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Energy 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

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 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

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 Iowa Creek Config-Bridge Paving 7/6/2015 8/15/2015 6 36

2 Road Imp-Transmission Building Construction 8/17/2015 9/12/2015 6 24

3 Adit Connection Building Construction 9/14/2015 10/10/2015 6 24

4 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve Building Construction 10/12/2015 4/23/2016 6 168

5 Powerhouse-Power Line Building Construction 4/25/2016 4/22/2017 6 312

6 SFAR Gravel Augment Building Construction 4/24/2017 5/20/2017 6 24

7 SFAR Habitat Impr Building Construction 4/24/2017 5/20/2017 6 24

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0

Acres of Paving: 0

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)

OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

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

Iowa Creek Config-Bridge Cranes 1 2.00 208 0.29

Iowa Creek Config-Bridge Excavators 1 6.00 157 0.38

Iowa Creek Config-Bridge Pavers 1 6.00 89 0.42

Iowa Creek Config-Bridge Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 75 0.37

Road Imp-Transmission Cranes 1 2.00 208 0.29

Road Imp-Transmission Graders 1 4.00 162 0.41

Road Imp-Transmission Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 75 0.37

Adit Connection Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.50

Adit Connection Other Material Handling Equipment 1 6.00 196 0.40

Adit Connection Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 6.00 83 0.40

Penstock-Boat Flow Valve Other Material Handling Equipment 1 6.00 196 0.40

Penstock-Boat Flow Valve Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 6.00 83 0.40

Penstock-Boat Flow Valve Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 0.00 97 0.37

Powerhouse-Power Line Cranes 1 2.00 208 0.29

Powerhouse-Power Line Crushing/Proc. Equipment 1 4.00 85 0.52

Powerhouse-Power Line Excavators 1 4.00 157 0.38

Powerhouse-Power Line Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.50

Powerhouse-Power Line Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 4.00 83 0.40

SFAR Gravel Augment Excavators 1 8.00 157 0.38

SFAR Habitat Impr Excavators 1 8.00 157 0.38

Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

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

Iowa Creek Config- 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Bridge Road Imp- 3 5.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Transmission Adit Connection 3 10.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Penstock-Boat Flow 2 0.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Valve Powerhouse-Power 5 18.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Line SFAR Gravel 1 0.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Augment SFAR Habitat Impr 1 0.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

3.2 Iowa Creek Config-Bridge - 2015 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 1.0187 10.5898 6.4852 9.3500e- 0.6599 0.6599 0.6071 0.6071 981.8717 981.8717 0.2931 988.0274 003

Paving 0.0109 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.0297 10.5898 6.4852 9.3500e- 0.6599 0.6599 0.6071 0.6071 981.8717 981.8717 0.2931 988.0274 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.2 Iowa Creek Config-Bridge - 2015 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 0.0551 0.0855 0.8189 1.4400e- 0.1277 1.0300e- 0.1288 0.0339 9.4000e- 0.0348 122.9166 122.9166 7.1500e- 123.0667 003 003 004 003

Total 0.0551 0.0855 0.8189 1.4400e- 0.1277 1.0300e- 0.1288 0.0339 9.4000e- 0.0348 122.9166 122.9166 7.1500e- 123.0667 003 003 004 003

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 1.0187 10.5898 6.4852 9.3500e- 0.6599 0.6599 0.6071 0.6071 0.0000 981.8717 981.8717 0.2931 988.0274 003

Paving 0.0109 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 1.0297 10.5898 6.4852 9.3500e- 0.6599 0.6599 0.6071 0.6071 0.0000 981.8717 981.8717 0.2931 988.0274 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.2 Iowa Creek Config-Bridge - 2015 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 0.0551 0.0855 0.8189 1.4400e- 0.1277 1.0300e- 0.1288 0.0339 9.4000e- 0.0348 122.9166 122.9166 7.1500e- 123.0667 003 003 004 003

Total 0.0551 0.0855 0.8189 1.4400e- 0.1277 1.0300e- 0.1288 0.0339 9.4000e- 0.0348 122.9166 122.9166 7.1500e- 123.0667 003 003 004 003

3.3 Road Imp-Transmission - 2015 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 0.8741 9.0765 4.4309 6.0100e- 0.5328 0.5328 0.4902 0.4902 632.0786 632.0786 0.1887 636.0413 003

Total 0.8741 9.0765 4.4309 6.0100e- 0.5328 0.5328 0.4902 0.4902 632.0786 632.0786 0.1887 636.0413 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.3 Road Imp-Transmission - 2015 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 0.0179 0.1005 0.2908 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5600e- 7.4000e- 1.6600e- 1.4400e- 3.0900e- 18.1686 18.1686 1.8000e- 18.1723 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0276 0.0428 0.4094 7.2000e- 0.0639 5.2000e- 0.0644 0.0169 4.7000e- 0.0174 61.4583 61.4583 3.5800e- 61.5334 004 004 004 003

Total 0.0454 0.1433 0.7002 9.0000e- 0.0697 2.0800e- 0.0718 0.0186 1.9100e- 0.0205 79.6269 79.6269 3.7600e- 79.7057 004 003 003 003

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 0.8741 9.0765 4.4309 6.0100e- 0.5328 0.5328 0.4902 0.4902 0.0000 632.0786 632.0786 0.1887 636.0413 003

Total 0.8741 9.0765 4.4309 6.0100e- 0.5328 0.5328 0.4902 0.4902 0.0000 632.0786 632.0786 0.1887 636.0413 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.3 Road Imp-Transmission - 2015 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 0.0179 0.1005 0.2908 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5600e- 7.4000e- 1.6600e- 1.4400e- 3.0900e- 18.1686 18.1686 1.8000e- 18.1723 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0276 0.0428 0.4094 7.2000e- 0.0639 5.2000e- 0.0644 0.0169 4.7000e- 0.0174 61.4583 61.4583 3.5800e- 61.5334 004 004 004 003

Total 0.0454 0.1433 0.7002 9.0000e- 0.0697 2.0800e- 0.0718 0.0186 1.9100e- 0.0205 79.6269 79.6269 3.7600e- 79.7057 004 003 003 003

3.4 Adit Connection - 2015 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 1.0696 11.1496 5.8771 0.0116 0.5804 0.5804 0.5546 0.5546 1,175.556 1,175.556 0.2682 1,181.189 0 0 0

Total 1.0696 11.1496 5.8771 0.0116 0.5804 0.5804 0.5546 0.5546 1,175.556 1,175.556 0.2682 1,181.189 0 0 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.4 Adit Connection - 2015 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 0.0179 0.1005 0.2908 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5600e- 7.4000e- 1.6600e- 1.4400e- 3.0900e- 18.1686 18.1686 1.8000e- 18.1723 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0551 0.0855 0.8189 1.4400e- 0.1277 1.0300e- 0.1288 0.0339 9.4000e- 0.0348 122.9166 122.9166 7.1500e- 123.0667 003 003 004 003

Total 0.0730 0.1860 1.1097 1.6200e- 0.1336 2.5900e- 0.1362 0.0355 2.3800e- 0.0379 141.0852 141.0852 7.3300e- 141.2391 003 003 003 003

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 1.0696 11.1496 5.8771 0.0116 0.5804 0.5804 0.5546 0.5546 0.0000 1,175.556 1,175.556 0.2682 1,181.189 0 0 0

Total 1.0696 11.1496 5.8771 0.0116 0.5804 0.5804 0.5546 0.5546 0.0000 1,175.556 1,175.556 0.2682 1,181.189 0 0 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.4 Adit Connection - 2015 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 0.0179 0.1005 0.2908 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5600e- 7.4000e- 1.6600e- 1.4400e- 3.0900e- 18.1686 18.1686 1.8000e- 18.1723 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0551 0.0855 0.8189 1.4400e- 0.1277 1.0300e- 0.1288 0.0339 9.4000e- 0.0348 122.9166 122.9166 7.1500e- 123.0667 003 003 004 003

Total 0.0730 0.1860 1.1097 1.6200e- 0.1336 2.5900e- 0.1362 0.0355 2.3800e- 0.0379 141.0852 141.0852 7.3300e- 141.2391 003 003 003 003

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2015 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 0.5874 7.6169 3.2852 7.1900e- 0.3234 0.3234 0.2975 0.2975 754.5867 754.5867 0.2253 759.3174 003

Total 0.5874 7.6169 3.2852 7.1900e- 0.3234 0.3234 0.2975 0.2975 754.5867 754.5867 0.2253 759.3174 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2015 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 0.0179 0.1005 0.2908 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5600e- 7.4000e- 1.6600e- 1.4400e- 3.0900e- 18.1686 18.1686 1.8000e- 18.1723 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 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 0.0179 0.1005 0.2908 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5600e- 7.4000e- 1.6600e- 1.4400e- 3.0900e- 18.1686 18.1686 1.8000e- 18.1723 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

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 0.5874 7.6169 3.2852 7.1900e- 0.3234 0.3234 0.2975 0.2975 0.0000 754.5867 754.5867 0.2253 759.3174 003

Total 0.5874 7.6169 3.2852 7.1900e- 0.3234 0.3234 0.2975 0.2975 0.0000 754.5867 754.5867 0.2253 759.3174 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2015 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 0.0179 0.1005 0.2908 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5600e- 7.4000e- 1.6600e- 1.4400e- 3.0900e- 18.1686 18.1686 1.8000e- 18.1723 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 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 0.0179 0.1005 0.2908 1.8000e- 5.8400e- 1.5600e- 7.4000e- 1.6600e- 1.4400e- 3.0900e- 18.1686 18.1686 1.8000e- 18.1723 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2016 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 0.5457 7.0752 3.1712 7.1900e- 0.2895 0.2895 0.2664 0.2664 746.9492 746.9492 0.2253 751.6807 003

Total 0.5457 7.0752 3.1712 7.1900e- 0.2895 0.2895 0.2664 0.2664 746.9492 746.9492 0.2253 751.6807 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2016 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

Vendor 0.0165 0.0901 0.2760 1.9000e- 5.8500e- 1.2800e- 7.1300e- 1.6600e- 1.1800e- 2.8400e- 18.1943 18.1943 1.6000e- 18.1976 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 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

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

Total 0.0165 0.0901 0.2760 1.9000e- 5.8500e- 1.2800e- 7.1300e- 1.6600e- 1.1800e- 2.8400e- 18.1943 18.1943 1.6000e- 18.1976 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

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 0.5457 7.0752 3.1712 7.1900e- 0.2895 0.2895 0.2664 0.2664 0.0000 746.9492 746.9492 0.2253 751.6807 003

Total 0.5457 7.0752 3.1712 7.1900e- 0.2895 0.2895 0.2664 0.2664 0.0000 746.9492 746.9492 0.2253 751.6807 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 20 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2016 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

Worker 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

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 0.0165 0.0901 0.2760 1.9000e- 5.8500e- 1.2800e- 7.1300e- 1.6600e- 1.1800e- 2.8400e- 18.1943 18.1943 1.6000e- 18.1976 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Total 0.0165 0.0901 0.2760 1.9000e- 5.8500e- 1.2800e- 7.1300e- 1.6600e- 1.1800e- 2.8400e- 18.1943 18.1943 1.6000e- 18.1976 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 2016 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 1.1546 10.3061 7.3862 0.0121 0.6337 0.6337 0.6132 0.6132 1,192.293 1,192.293 0.2297 1,197.117 5 5 2

Total 1.1546 10.3061 7.3862 0.0121 0.6337 0.6337 0.6132 0.6132 1,192.293 1,192.293 0.2297 1,197.117 5 5 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 21 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 2016 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 0.0165 0.0901 0.2760 1.9000e- 5.8500e- 1.2800e- 7.1300e- 1.6600e- 1.1800e- 2.8400e- 18.1943 18.1943 1.6000e- 18.1976 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0855 0.1363 1.2902 2.5900e- 0.2299 1.7500e- 0.2317 0.0610 1.6000e- 0.0626 213.1066 213.1066 0.0117 213.3511 003 003 003

Total 0.1020 0.2264 1.5663 2.7800e- 0.2358 3.0300e- 0.2388 0.0626 2.7800e- 0.0654 231.3009 231.3009 0.0118 231.5488 003 003 003

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 1.1546 10.3061 7.3862 0.0121 0.6337 0.6337 0.6132 0.6132 0.0000 1,192.293 1,192.293 0.2297 1,197.117 5 5 2

Total 1.1546 10.3061 7.3862 0.0121 0.6337 0.6337 0.6132 0.6132 0.0000 1,192.293 1,192.293 0.2297 1,197.117 5 5 2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 22 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 2016 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 0.0165 0.0901 0.2760 1.9000e- 5.8500e- 1.2800e- 7.1300e- 1.6600e- 1.1800e- 2.8400e- 18.1943 18.1943 1.6000e- 18.1976 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0855 0.1363 1.2902 2.5900e- 0.2299 1.7500e- 0.2317 0.0610 1.6000e- 0.0626 213.1066 213.1066 0.0117 213.3511 003 003 003

Total 0.1020 0.2264 1.5663 2.7800e- 0.2358 3.0300e- 0.2388 0.0626 2.7800e- 0.0654 231.3009 231.3009 0.0118 231.5488 003 003 003

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 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 1.0413 9.3877 7.2906 0.0121 0.5594 0.5594 0.5412 0.5412 1,183.716 1,183.716 0.2225 1,188.389 7 7 5

Total 1.0413 9.3877 7.2906 0.0121 0.5594 0.5594 0.5412 0.5412 1,183.716 1,183.716 0.2225 1,188.389 7 7 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 23 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 2017 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 0.0148 0.0835 0.2632 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.1100e- 6.9700e- 1.6700e- 1.0200e- 2.6900e- 18.1405 18.1405 1.5000e- 18.1437 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0731 0.1208 1.1268 2.5900e- 0.2299 1.6700e- 0.2316 0.0610 1.5400e- 0.0625 204.6468 204.6468 0.0106 204.8688 003 003 003

Total 0.0879 0.2044 1.3900 2.7800e- 0.2358 2.7800e- 0.2386 0.0626 2.5600e- 0.0652 222.7873 222.7873 0.0107 223.0125 003 003 003

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 1.0413 9.3877 7.2906 0.0121 0.5594 0.5594 0.5412 0.5412 0.0000 1,183.716 1,183.716 0.2225 1,188.389 7 7 5

Total 1.0413 9.3877 7.2906 0.0121 0.5594 0.5594 0.5412 0.5412 0.0000 1,183.716 1,183.716 0.2225 1,188.389 7 7 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 24 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 2017 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 0.0148 0.0835 0.2632 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.1100e- 6.9700e- 1.6700e- 1.0200e- 2.6900e- 18.1405 18.1405 1.5000e- 18.1437 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 0.0731 0.1208 1.1268 2.5900e- 0.2299 1.6700e- 0.2316 0.0610 1.5400e- 0.0625 204.6468 204.6468 0.0106 204.8688 003 003 003

Total 0.0879 0.2044 1.3900 2.7800e- 0.2358 2.7800e- 0.2386 0.0626 2.5600e- 0.0652 222.7873 222.7873 0.0107 223.0125 003 003 003

3.7 SFAR Gravel Augment - 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 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003

Total 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 25 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.7 SFAR Gravel Augment - 2017 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 0.0148 0.0835 0.2632 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.1100e- 6.9700e- 1.6700e- 1.0200e- 2.6900e- 18.1405 18.1405 1.5000e- 18.1437 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 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 0.0148 0.0835 0.2632 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.1100e- 6.9700e- 1.6700e- 1.0200e- 2.6900e- 18.1405 18.1405 1.5000e- 18.1437 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

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 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 0.0000 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003

Total 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 0.0000 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 26 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.7 SFAR Gravel Augment - 2017 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 0.0148 0.0835 0.2632 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.1100e- 6.9700e- 1.6700e- 1.0200e- 2.6900e- 18.1405 18.1405 1.5000e- 18.1437 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 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 0.0148 0.0835 0.2632 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.1100e- 6.9700e- 1.6700e- 1.0200e- 2.6900e- 18.1405 18.1405 1.5000e- 18.1437 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

3.8 SFAR Habitat Impr - 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 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003

Total 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 27 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.8 SFAR Habitat Impr - 2017 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 0.0148 0.0835 0.2632 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.1100e- 6.9700e- 1.6700e- 1.0200e- 2.6900e- 18.1405 18.1405 1.5000e- 18.1437 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 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 0.0148 0.0835 0.2632 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.1100e- 6.9700e- 1.6700e- 1.0200e- 2.6900e- 18.1405 18.1405 1.5000e- 18.1437 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

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 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 0.0000 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003

Total 0.3510 3.8929 3.3155 5.1300e- 0.1915 0.1915 0.1762 0.1762 0.0000 524.5562 524.5562 0.1607 527.9313 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 28 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

3.8 SFAR Habitat Impr - 2017 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 0.0148 0.0835 0.2632 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.1100e- 6.9700e- 1.6700e- 1.0200e- 2.6900e- 18.1405 18.1405 1.5000e- 18.1437 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

Worker 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 0.0148 0.0835 0.2632 1.9000e- 5.8600e- 1.1100e- 6.9700e- 1.6700e- 1.0200e- 2.6900e- 18.1405 18.1405 1.5000e- 18.1437 004 003 003 003 003 003 003 004

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 29 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

4.2 Trip Summary Information

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

Other Asphalt Surfaces 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 Asphalt Surfaces 14.70 6.60 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.456704 0.078514 0.189610 0.161545 0.075051 0.010626 0.010499 0.000987 0.001369 0.000777 0.008668 0.000749 0.004900

5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

NaturalGas 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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 30 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

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 Asphalt 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 Surfaces

Total 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

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 Asphalt 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 Surfaces

Total 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

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 31 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

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 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Unmitigated 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

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 0.0104 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.1398 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Total 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 32 of 32 Date: 4/27/2015 2:05 PM

6.2 Area by SubCategory 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 0.0104 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

Consumer 0.1398 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

Total 0.1502 0.0000 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 005

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 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

Slab Creek Construction El Dorado-Mountain County County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.15 Acre 0.15 6,534.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Rural Wind Speed (m/s) 2.7 Precipitation Freq (Days) 70

Climate Zone 1 Operational Year 2017

Utility Company

CO2 Intensity 0 CH4 Intensity 0 N2O Intensity 0 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - PD Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Off-road Equipment - cconstruction assumptions Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Off-road Equipment - construction assumptions Trips and VMT - all on-road emissions modeled off-model Demolition - PD Grading - FD modeled off-model

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Interior 9801 0

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 24.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 24.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 168.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 312.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 24.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 24.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 36.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00

tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/17/2017 5/20/2017

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/16/2015 8/17/2015

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 9/13/2015 9/14/2015

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/11/2015 10/12/2015

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/24/2016 4/25/2016

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/23/2017 4/24/2017

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/21/2017 4/24/2017

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 226.00 208.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 226.00 208.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 125.00 89.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 75.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 97.00 75.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 226.00 208.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 157.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 157.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 157.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 162.00 157.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 174.00 162.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 167.00 196.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 167.00 196.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 100.00 83.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 100.00 83.00

tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 100.00 83.00

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.78 0.52

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.74 0.50

tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.74 0.50 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00

tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 2.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 4.00 2.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 6.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 6.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 6.00

tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2017

tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 5.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 10.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 0.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 18.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 0.00

tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 3.00 0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

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

2015 0.0652 0.7086 0.3991 7.0000e- 4.7400e- 0.0367 0.0414 1.2700e- 0.0340 0.0353 0.0000 64.7601 64.7601 0.0172 0.0000 65.1204 004 003 003

2016 0.1625 1.4873 1.1279 1.9700e- 0.0247 0.0830 0.1077 6.5800e- 0.0796 0.0862 0.0000 174.0101 174.0101 0.0337 0.0000 174.7174 003 003

2017 0.0627 0.5553 0.4994 8.4000e- 0.0110 0.0316 0.0426 2.9300e- 0.0304 0.0333 0.0000 73.2846 73.2846 0.0137 0.0000 73.5714 004 003

Total 0.2905 2.7513 2.0264 3.5100e- 0.0404 0.1513 0.1917 0.0108 0.1440 0.1548 0.0000 312.0547 312.0547 0.0645 0.0000 313.4092 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

2015 0.0652 0.7086 0.3991 7.0000e- 4.7400e- 0.0367 0.0414 1.2700e- 0.0340 0.0353 0.0000 64.7600 64.7600 0.0172 0.0000 65.1203 004 003 003

2016 0.1625 1.4873 1.1279 1.9700e- 0.0247 0.0830 0.1077 6.5800e- 0.0796 0.0862 0.0000 174.0099 174.0099 0.0337 0.0000 174.7172 003 003

2017 0.0627 0.5553 0.4994 8.4000e- 0.0110 0.0316 0.0426 2.9300e- 0.0304 0.0333 0.0000 73.2845 73.2845 0.0137 0.0000 73.5713 004 003

Total 0.2905 2.7513 2.0264 3.5100e- 0.0404 0.1513 0.1917 0.0108 0.1440 0.1548 0.0000 312.0544 312.0544 0.0645 0.0000 313.4089 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

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

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 0.0274 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

Energy 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

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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0274 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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

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 0.0274 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

Energy 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

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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0274 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

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.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

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

1 Iowa Creek Config-Bridge Paving 7/6/2015 8/15/2015 6 36

2 Road Imp-Transmission Building Construction 8/17/2015 9/12/2015 6 24

3 Adit Connection Building Construction 9/14/2015 10/10/2015 6 24

4 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve Building Construction 10/12/2015 4/23/2016 6 168

5 Powerhouse-Power Line Building Construction 4/25/2016 4/22/2017 6 312

6 SFAR Gravel Augment Building Construction 4/24/2017 5/20/2017 6 24

7 SFAR Habitat Impr Building Construction 4/24/2017 5/20/2017 6 24

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0

Acres of Paving: 0

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)

OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

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

Iowa Creek Config-Bridge Cranes 1 2.00 208 0.29

Iowa Creek Config-Bridge Excavators 1 6.00 157 0.38

Iowa Creek Config-Bridge Pavers 1 6.00 89 0.42

Iowa Creek Config-Bridge Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 75 0.37

Road Imp-Transmission Cranes 1 2.00 208 0.29

Road Imp-Transmission Graders 1 4.00 162 0.41

Road Imp-Transmission Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 75 0.37

Adit Connection Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.50

Adit Connection Other Material Handling Equipment 1 6.00 196 0.40

Adit Connection Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 6.00 83 0.40

Penstock-Boat Flow Valve Other Material Handling Equipment 1 6.00 196 0.40

Penstock-Boat Flow Valve Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 6.00 83 0.40

Penstock-Boat Flow Valve Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 0.00 97 0.37

Powerhouse-Power Line Cranes 1 2.00 208 0.29

Powerhouse-Power Line Crushing/Proc. Equipment 1 4.00 85 0.52

Powerhouse-Power Line Excavators 1 4.00 157 0.38

Powerhouse-Power Line Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.50

Powerhouse-Power Line Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 4.00 83 0.40

SFAR Gravel Augment Excavators 1 8.00 157 0.38

SFAR Habitat Impr Excavators 1 8.00 157 0.38

Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

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

Iowa Creek Config- 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Bridge Road Imp- 3 5.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Transmission Adit Connection 3 10.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

Penstock-Boat Flow 2 0.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Valve Powerhouse-Power 5 18.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Line SFAR Gravel 1 0.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Augment SFAR Habitat Impr 1 0.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

3.2 Iowa Creek Config-Bridge - 2015 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 0.0183 0.1906 0.1167 1.7000e- 0.0119 0.0119 0.0109 0.0109 0.0000 16.0333 16.0333 4.7900e- 0.0000 16.1338 004 003

Paving 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 004

Total 0.0185 0.1906 0.1167 1.7000e- 0.0119 0.0119 0.0109 0.0109 0.0000 16.0333 16.0333 4.7900e- 0.0000 16.1338 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.2 Iowa Creek Config-Bridge - 2015 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 9.4000e- 1.4300e- 0.0145 3.0000e- 2.2000e- 2.0000e- 2.2200e- 5.9000e- 2.0000e- 6.0000e- 0.0000 2.0556 2.0556 1.2000e- 0.0000 2.0580 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004

Total 9.4000e- 1.4300e- 0.0145 3.0000e- 2.2000e- 2.0000e- 2.2200e- 5.9000e- 2.0000e- 6.0000e- 0.0000 2.0556 2.0556 1.2000e- 0.0000 2.0580 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004

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 0.0183 0.1906 0.1167 1.7000e- 0.0119 0.0119 0.0109 0.0109 0.0000 16.0333 16.0333 4.7900e- 0.0000 16.1338 004 003

Paving 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 004

Total 0.0185 0.1906 0.1167 1.7000e- 0.0119 0.0119 0.0109 0.0109 0.0000 16.0333 16.0333 4.7900e- 0.0000 16.1338 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.2 Iowa Creek Config-Bridge - 2015 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 9.4000e- 1.4300e- 0.0145 3.0000e- 2.2000e- 2.0000e- 2.2200e- 5.9000e- 2.0000e- 6.0000e- 0.0000 2.0556 2.0556 1.2000e- 0.0000 2.0580 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004

Total 9.4000e- 1.4300e- 0.0145 3.0000e- 2.2000e- 2.0000e- 2.2200e- 5.9000e- 2.0000e- 6.0000e- 0.0000 2.0556 2.0556 1.2000e- 0.0000 2.0580 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004

3.3 Road Imp-Transmission - 2015 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 0.0105 0.1089 0.0532 7.0000e- 6.3900e- 6.3900e- 5.8800e- 5.8800e- 0.0000 6.8809 6.8809 2.0500e- 0.0000 6.9241 005 003 003 003 003 003

Total 0.0105 0.1089 0.0532 7.0000e- 6.3900e- 6.3900e- 5.8800e- 5.8800e- 0.0000 6.8809 6.8809 2.0500e- 0.0000 6.9241 005 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.3 Road Imp-Transmission - 2015 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 1.9000e- 1.1900e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 2.0000e- 9.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.1989 0.1989 0.0000 0.0000 0.1990 004 003 003 005 005 005 005 005 005

Worker 3.1000e- 4.8000e- 4.8300e- 1.0000e- 7.3000e- 1.0000e- 7.4000e- 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.6852 0.6852 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.6860 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005

Total 5.0000e- 1.6700e- 7.8300e- 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 3.0000e- 8.3000e- 2.2000e- 3.0000e- 2.4000e- 0.0000 0.8841 0.8841 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.8850 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005

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 0.0105 0.1089 0.0532 7.0000e- 6.3900e- 6.3900e- 5.8800e- 5.8800e- 0.0000 6.8809 6.8809 2.0500e- 0.0000 6.9241 005 003 003 003 003 003

Total 0.0105 0.1089 0.0532 7.0000e- 6.3900e- 6.3900e- 5.8800e- 5.8800e- 0.0000 6.8809 6.8809 2.0500e- 0.0000 6.9241 005 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.3 Road Imp-Transmission - 2015 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 1.9000e- 1.1900e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 2.0000e- 9.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.1989 0.1989 0.0000 0.0000 0.1990 004 003 003 005 005 005 005 005 005

Worker 3.1000e- 4.8000e- 4.8300e- 1.0000e- 7.3000e- 1.0000e- 7.4000e- 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 2.0000e- 0.0000 0.6852 0.6852 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.6860 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005

Total 5.0000e- 1.6700e- 7.8300e- 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 3.0000e- 8.3000e- 2.2000e- 3.0000e- 2.4000e- 0.0000 0.8841 0.8841 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.8850 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005

3.4 Adit Connection - 2015 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 0.0128 0.1338 0.0705 1.4000e- 6.9700e- 6.9700e- 6.6500e- 6.6500e- 0.0000 12.7974 12.7974 2.9200e- 0.0000 12.8587 004 003 003 003 003 003

Total 0.0128 0.1338 0.0705 1.4000e- 6.9700e- 6.9700e- 6.6500e- 6.6500e- 0.0000 12.7974 12.7974 2.9200e- 0.0000 12.8587 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.4 Adit Connection - 2015 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 1.9000e- 1.1900e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 2.0000e- 9.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.1989 0.1989 0.0000 0.0000 0.1990 004 003 003 005 005 005 005 005 005

Worker 6.3000e- 9.5000e- 9.6600e- 2.0000e- 1.4700e- 1.0000e- 1.4800e- 3.9000e- 1.0000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 1.3704 1.3704 8.0000e- 0.0000 1.3720 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005

Total 8.2000e- 2.1400e- 0.0127 2.0000e- 1.5400e- 3.0000e- 1.5700e- 4.1000e- 3.0000e- 4.4000e- 0.0000 1.5693 1.5693 8.0000e- 0.0000 1.5710 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005

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 0.0128 0.1338 0.0705 1.4000e- 6.9700e- 6.9700e- 6.6500e- 6.6500e- 0.0000 12.7973 12.7973 2.9200e- 0.0000 12.8587 004 003 003 003 003 003

Total 0.0128 0.1338 0.0705 1.4000e- 6.9700e- 6.9700e- 6.6500e- 6.6500e- 0.0000 12.7973 12.7973 2.9200e- 0.0000 12.8587 004 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.4 Adit Connection - 2015 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 1.9000e- 1.1900e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 2.0000e- 9.0000e- 2.0000e- 2.0000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 0.1989 0.1989 0.0000 0.0000 0.1990 004 003 003 005 005 005 005 005 005

Worker 6.3000e- 9.5000e- 9.6600e- 2.0000e- 1.4700e- 1.0000e- 1.4800e- 3.9000e- 1.0000e- 4.0000e- 0.0000 1.3704 1.3704 8.0000e- 0.0000 1.3720 004 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005

Total 8.2000e- 2.1400e- 0.0127 2.0000e- 1.5400e- 3.0000e- 1.5700e- 4.1000e- 3.0000e- 4.4000e- 0.0000 1.5693 1.5693 8.0000e- 0.0000 1.5710 004 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2015 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 0.0206 0.2666 0.1150 2.5000e- 0.0113 0.0113 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 23.9592 23.9592 7.1500e- 0.0000 24.1094 004 003

Total 0.0206 0.2666 0.1150 2.5000e- 0.0113 0.0113 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 23.9592 23.9592 7.1500e- 0.0000 24.1094 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2015 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 5.6000e- 3.4700e- 8.7400e- 1.0000e- 2.0000e- 5.0000e- 2.5000e- 6.0000e- 5.0000e- 1.1000e- 0.0000 0.5802 0.5802 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.5804 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005

Worker 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

Total 5.6000e- 3.4700e- 8.7400e- 1.0000e- 2.0000e- 5.0000e- 2.5000e- 6.0000e- 5.0000e- 1.1000e- 0.0000 0.5802 0.5802 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.5804 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005

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 0.0206 0.2666 0.1150 2.5000e- 0.0113 0.0113 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 23.9592 23.9592 7.1500e- 0.0000 24.1094 004 003

Total 0.0206 0.2666 0.1150 2.5000e- 0.0113 0.0113 0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 23.9592 23.9592 7.1500e- 0.0000 24.1094 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2015 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 5.6000e- 3.4700e- 8.7400e- 1.0000e- 2.0000e- 5.0000e- 2.5000e- 6.0000e- 5.0000e- 1.1000e- 0.0000 0.5802 0.5802 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.5804 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005

Worker 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

Total 5.6000e- 3.4700e- 8.7400e- 1.0000e- 2.0000e- 5.0000e- 2.5000e- 6.0000e- 5.0000e- 1.1000e- 0.0000 0.5802 0.5802 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.5804 004 003 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2016 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 0.0267 0.3467 0.1554 3.5000e- 0.0142 0.0142 0.0131 0.0131 0.0000 33.2034 33.2034 0.0100 0.0000 33.4138 004

Total 0.0267 0.3467 0.1554 3.5000e- 0.0142 0.0142 0.0131 0.0131 0.0000 33.2034 33.2034 0.0100 0.0000 33.4138 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2016 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 7.2000e- 4.3500e- 0.0116 1.0000e- 2.8000e- 6.0000e- 3.4000e- 8.0000e- 6.0000e- 1.4000e- 0.0000 0.8135 0.8135 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.8136 004 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005

Worker 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

Total 7.2000e- 4.3500e- 0.0116 1.0000e- 2.8000e- 6.0000e- 3.4000e- 8.0000e- 6.0000e- 1.4000e- 0.0000 0.8135 0.8135 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.8136 004 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005

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 0.0267 0.3467 0.1554 3.5000e- 0.0142 0.0142 0.0131 0.0131 0.0000 33.2034 33.2034 0.0100 0.0000 33.4137 004

Total 0.0267 0.3467 0.1554 3.5000e- 0.0142 0.0142 0.0131 0.0131 0.0000 33.2034 33.2034 0.0100 0.0000 33.4137 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 20 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.5 Penstock-Boat Flow Valve - 2016 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 7.2000e- 4.3500e- 0.0116 1.0000e- 2.8000e- 6.0000e- 3.4000e- 8.0000e- 6.0000e- 1.4000e- 0.0000 0.8135 0.8135 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.8136 004 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005

Worker 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

Total 7.2000e- 4.3500e- 0.0116 1.0000e- 2.8000e- 6.0000e- 3.4000e- 8.0000e- 6.0000e- 1.4000e- 0.0000 0.8135 0.8135 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.8136 004 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 2016 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 0.1247 1.1131 0.7977 1.3000e- 0.0684 0.0684 0.0662 0.0662 0.0000 116.8161 116.8161 0.0225 0.0000 117.2887 003

Total 0.1247 1.1131 0.7977 1.3000e- 0.0684 0.0684 0.0662 0.0662 0.0000 116.8161 116.8161 0.0225 0.0000 117.2887 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 21 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 2016 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 1.5900e- 9.5900e- 0.0256 2.0000e- 6.1000e- 1.4000e- 7.5000e- 1.7000e- 1.3000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 1.7929 1.7929 2.0000e- 0.0000 1.7932 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 004 005

Worker 8.8000e- 0.0136 0.1376 2.9000e- 0.0238 1.9000e- 0.0240 6.3300e- 1.7000e- 6.5000e- 0.0000 21.3842 21.3842 1.1400e- 0.0000 21.4081 003 004 004 003 004 003 003

Total 0.0104 0.0232 0.1632 3.1000e- 0.0244 3.3000e- 0.0247 6.5000e- 3.0000e- 6.8000e- 0.0000 23.1771 23.1771 1.1600e- 0.0000 23.2014 004 004 003 004 003 003

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 0.1247 1.1131 0.7977 1.3000e- 0.0684 0.0684 0.0662 0.0662 0.0000 116.8160 116.8160 0.0225 0.0000 117.2886 003

Total 0.1247 1.1131 0.7977 1.3000e- 0.0684 0.0684 0.0662 0.0662 0.0000 116.8160 116.8160 0.0225 0.0000 117.2886 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 22 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 2016 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 1.5900e- 9.5900e- 0.0256 2.0000e- 6.1000e- 1.4000e- 7.5000e- 1.7000e- 1.3000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 1.7929 1.7929 2.0000e- 0.0000 1.7932 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 004 005

Worker 8.8000e- 0.0136 0.1376 2.9000e- 0.0238 1.9000e- 0.0240 6.3300e- 1.7000e- 6.5000e- 0.0000 21.3842 21.3842 1.1400e- 0.0000 21.4081 003 004 004 003 004 003 003

Total 0.0104 0.0232 0.1632 3.1000e- 0.0244 3.3000e- 0.0247 6.5000e- 3.0000e- 6.8000e- 0.0000 23.1771 23.1771 1.1600e- 0.0000 23.2014 004 004 003 004 003 003

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 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 0.0500 0.4506 0.3500 5.8000e- 0.0269 0.0269 0.0260 0.0260 0.0000 51.5448 51.5448 9.6900e- 0.0000 51.7483 004 003

Total 0.0500 0.4506 0.3500 5.8000e- 0.0269 0.0269 0.0260 0.0260 0.0000 51.5448 51.5448 9.6900e- 0.0000 51.7483 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 23 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 2017 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 6.3000e- 3.9500e- 0.0108 1.0000e- 2.7000e- 5.0000e- 3.2000e- 8.0000e- 5.0000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 0.7945 0.7945 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.7946 004 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005

Worker 3.3600e- 5.3700e- 0.0537 1.3000e- 0.0106 8.0000e- 0.0107 2.8100e- 7.0000e- 2.8900e- 0.0000 9.1273 9.1273 4.6000e- 0.0000 9.1369 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004

Total 3.9900e- 9.3200e- 0.0645 1.4000e- 0.0109 1.3000e- 0.0110 2.8900e- 1.2000e- 3.0200e- 0.0000 9.9217 9.9217 4.7000e- 0.0000 9.9315 003 003 004 004 003 004 003 004

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 0.0500 0.4506 0.3500 5.8000e- 0.0269 0.0269 0.0260 0.0260 0.0000 51.5447 51.5447 9.6900e- 0.0000 51.7482 004 003

Total 0.0500 0.4506 0.3500 5.8000e- 0.0269 0.0269 0.0260 0.0260 0.0000 51.5447 51.5447 9.6900e- 0.0000 51.7482 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 24 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.6 Powerhouse-Power Line - 2017 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 6.3000e- 3.9500e- 0.0108 1.0000e- 2.7000e- 5.0000e- 3.2000e- 8.0000e- 5.0000e- 1.3000e- 0.0000 0.7945 0.7945 1.0000e- 0.0000 0.7946 004 003 005 004 005 004 005 005 004 005

Worker 3.3600e- 5.3700e- 0.0537 1.3000e- 0.0106 8.0000e- 0.0107 2.8100e- 7.0000e- 2.8900e- 0.0000 9.1273 9.1273 4.6000e- 0.0000 9.1369 003 003 004 005 003 005 003 004

Total 3.9900e- 9.3200e- 0.0645 1.4000e- 0.0109 1.3000e- 0.0110 2.8900e- 1.2000e- 3.0200e- 0.0000 9.9217 9.9217 4.7000e- 0.0000 9.9315 003 003 004 004 003 004 003 004

3.7 SFAR Gravel Augment - 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 4.2100e- 0.0467 0.0398 6.0000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.1100e- 2.1100e- 0.0000 5.7104 5.7104 1.7500e- 0.0000 5.7472 003 005 003 003 003 003 003

Total 4.2100e- 0.0467 0.0398 6.0000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.1100e- 2.1100e- 0.0000 5.7104 5.7104 1.7500e- 0.0000 5.7472 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 25 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.7 SFAR Gravel Augment - 2017 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 1.6000e- 9.9000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.1986 0.1986 0.0000 0.0000 0.1987 004 004 003 005 005 005 005 005 005

Worker 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

Total 1.6000e- 9.9000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.1986 0.1986 0.0000 0.0000 0.1987 004 004 003 005 005 005 005 005 005

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 4.2100e- 0.0467 0.0398 6.0000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.1100e- 2.1100e- 0.0000 5.7104 5.7104 1.7500e- 0.0000 5.7472 003 005 003 003 003 003 003

Total 4.2100e- 0.0467 0.0398 6.0000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.1100e- 2.1100e- 0.0000 5.7104 5.7104 1.7500e- 0.0000 5.7472 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 26 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.7 SFAR Gravel Augment - 2017 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 1.6000e- 9.9000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.1986 0.1986 0.0000 0.0000 0.1987 004 004 003 005 005 005 005 005 005

Worker 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

Total 1.6000e- 9.9000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.1986 0.1986 0.0000 0.0000 0.1987 004 004 003 005 005 005 005 005 005

3.8 SFAR Habitat Impr - 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 4.2100e- 0.0467 0.0398 6.0000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.1100e- 2.1100e- 0.0000 5.7104 5.7104 1.7500e- 0.0000 5.7472 003 005 003 003 003 003 003

Total 4.2100e- 0.0467 0.0398 6.0000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.1100e- 2.1100e- 0.0000 5.7104 5.7104 1.7500e- 0.0000 5.7472 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 27 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.8 SFAR Habitat Impr - 2017 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 1.6000e- 9.9000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.1986 0.1986 0.0000 0.0000 0.1987 004 004 003 005 005 005 005 005 005

Worker 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

Total 1.6000e- 9.9000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.1986 0.1986 0.0000 0.0000 0.1987 004 004 003 005 005 005 005 005 005

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 4.2100e- 0.0467 0.0398 6.0000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.1100e- 2.1100e- 0.0000 5.7104 5.7104 1.7500e- 0.0000 5.7472 003 005 003 003 003 003 003

Total 4.2100e- 0.0467 0.0398 6.0000e- 2.3000e- 2.3000e- 2.1100e- 2.1100e- 0.0000 5.7104 5.7104 1.7500e- 0.0000 5.7472 003 005 003 003 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 28 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

3.8 SFAR Habitat Impr - 2017 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 1.6000e- 9.9000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.1986 0.1986 0.0000 0.0000 0.1987 004 004 003 005 005 005 005 005 005

Worker 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

Total 1.6000e- 9.9000e- 2.7000e- 0.0000 7.0000e- 1.0000e- 8.0000e- 2.0000e- 1.0000e- 3.0000e- 0.0000 0.1986 0.1986 0.0000 0.0000 0.1987 004 004 003 005 005 005 005 005 005

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 29 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

4.2 Trip Summary Information

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

Other Asphalt Surfaces 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 Asphalt Surfaces 14.70 6.60 6.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.456704 0.078514 0.189610 0.161545 0.075051 0.010626 0.010499 0.000987 0.001369 0.000777 0.008668 0.000749 0.004900

5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 30 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated

Electricity 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated

NaturalGas 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 Mitigated

NaturalGas 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

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 Asphalt 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 Surfaces

Total 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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 31 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas 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 Asphalt 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 Surfaces

Total 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

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated

Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 32 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated

Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

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 0.0274 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 0.0274 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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 33 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

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 1.8900e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating 003

Consumer 0.0255 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 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 0.0274 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

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 1.8900e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating 003

Consumer 0.0255 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

Landscaping 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 0.0274 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

7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 34 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category MT/yr

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated

Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use

Land Use Mgal MT/yr

Other Asphalt 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 35 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated

Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e door Use

Land Use Mgal MT/yr

Other Asphalt 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

Category/Year

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

MT/yr

Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 36 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated

Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons MT/yr

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated

Waste Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons MT/yr

Other Asphalt 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces

Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 37 of 37 Date: 4/27/2015 2:07 PM

10.0 Vegetation

Slab Creek Construction Emissions Summary

Total Pollutants (lbs/day) Metric Tons

Construction Phase/Source ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 CO2e Iowa Canyon Creek Reconfiguration and Bridge 1.71 21.59 2.59 1.22 63 Construction Equipment 1.03 10.59 0.66 0.61 16 On‐Road Vehicles 0.68 11.00 0.67 0.42 47 Fugitive Dust 1.25 0.19 Road Improvements and Transmission Line 1.55 20.07 1.21 0.91 37 Construction Equipment 0.87 9.08 0.53 0.49 7 On‐Road Vehicles 0.68 11.00 0.67 0.42 30 Fugitive Dust White Rock Tunnel and Adit Connection 1.75 22.15 1.25 0.98 43 Construction Equipment 1.07 11.15 0.58 0.55 13 On‐Road Vehicles 0.68 11.00 0.67 0.42 30 Fugitive Dust Penstock and Boating Flow Valve 1.27 18.61 1.00 0.72 264 Construction Equipment 0.59 7.62 0.32 0.30 58 On‐Road Vehicles 0.68 11.00 0.67 0.42 207 Fugitive Dust Powerhouse and Electrical Power Line 1.83 23.57 32.65 5.08 570 Construction Equipment 1.15 10.31 0.63 0.61 169 On‐Road Vehicles 0.68 11.00 0.67 0.42 401 Blasting ‐ 2.27 31.35 4.04 Fugitive Dust 15.37 4.72 SFAR Habitat Improvement 9.41 10.92 0.44 0.40 12 Construction Equipment 9.36 10.63 0.39 0.38 9 On‐Road Vehicles 0.05 0.29 0.05 0.03 3 Fugitive Dust SFAR Gravel Augmentation 9.64 19.14 3.98 1.07 15 Construction Equipment 9.36 10.63 0.39 0.38 9 On‐Road Vehicles 0.28 8.51 0.27 0.19 6 Fugitive Dust 3.32 0.50 Maximum Daily 9.64 23.57 32.65 5.08 Total 1,005 Slab Creek On‐Road Construction Emissions

Daily Emissions (lbs/day) Annual Emissions (tons) MT Material Trip Distance Moved (miles/one‐

Construction Phase/Equipment Work Days (cy) Total Trips way) Total VMT Daily Trips Daily VMT ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 CO2e Iowa Canyon Creek Reconfiguration and Bridge 36 0.68 11.00 0.67 0.42 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.01 47.20 Haul Trucks (Bridge Components) materials 10 30 600 300 0.23 8.23 0.22 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.11 Haul Trucks (Creek Export) 20 2 30 120 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 Haul Trucks (Asphalt) 207 21 30 1260 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.32 Construction Workers ‐ 1800 30 108000 50 3000 0.43 2.67 0.44 0.25 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.00 42.08 Shuttle Trips 360 5 3600 10 100 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.47 Road Improvements and Transmission Line 24 0.68 11.00 0.67 0.42 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 30.14 Haul Trucks (Transmission and Misc Road) materials 10 30 600 300 0.23 8.23 0.22 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.11 Construction Workers ‐ 1200 30 72000 50 3000 0.43 2.67 0.44 0.25 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 28.05 Shuttle Trips 240 5 2400 10 100 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 White Rock Tunnel and Adit Connection 24 0.68 11.00 0.67 0.42 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 30.14 Haul Trucks (Connection Components) materials 10 30 600 300 0.23 8.23 0.22 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.11 Construction Workers ‐ 1200 30 72000 50 3000 0.43 2.67 0.44 0.25 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 28.05 Shuttle Trips 240 5 2400 10 100 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 Penstock and Boating Flow Valve 168 0.68 11.00 0.67 0.42 0.04 0.26 0.04 0.02 206.52 Haul Trucks (Penstock Components) materials 30 30 1800 300 0.23 8.23 0.22 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 3.32 Construction Workers ‐ 8400 30 504000 50 3000 0.43 2.67 0.44 0.25 0.04 0.22 0.04 0.02 196.36 Shuttle Trips 1680 5 16800 10 100 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 6.85 Powerhouse and Electrical Power Line 312 0.68 11.00 0.67 0.42 0.07 0.61 0.08 0.04 401.25 Haul Trucks (Balance for Yard Fill ‐ on‐site) 800 80 0.05 8 300 0.23 8.23 0.22 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Haul Trucks (Balance for Yard Fill ‐ off‐site) 1700 170 30 10200 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 18.82 Haul Trucks (Concrete) 1700 213 5 2130 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 3.93 Haul Trucks (Turbine/Generator) materials 10 30 600 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.11 Construction Workers ‐ 15600 30 936000 50 3000 0.43 2.67 0.44 0.25 0.07 0.42 0.07 0.04 364.66 Shuttle Trips 3120 5 31200 10 100 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 12.71 SFAR Habitat Improvement 24 0.05 0.29 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 Construction Workers ‐ 120 30 7200 5 300 0.04 0.27 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.81 Shuttle Trips 48 5 480 2 20 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 SFAR Gravel Augmentation 24 0.28 8.51 0.27 0.19 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 6.32 Haul Trucks (Gravel) 300 30 30 1800 300 0.23 8.23 0.22 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 3.32 Construction Workers ‐ 120 30 7200 5 300 0.04 0.27 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.81 Shuttle Trips 48 5 480 2 20 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20

On‐Road Emission Factors (El Dorado County 2015)

Vehicle Category ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 CO2e Construction Worker (LDA‐LDT) 0.065 0.404 0.066 0.038 370.114 Shuttles (LDT) 0.082 0.451 0.071 0.042 387.112 Haul Trucks (T7) 0.349 12.436 0.332 0.251 1,752.856 Slab Creek Blasting Assumptions

Blasting Material Ammonium Nitrate with Fuel Oil (ANFO) Weekly Blasts 2 blasts/week Weeks of Blasting 3 weeks Total Blasts 6 blasts Total Volume to Blast 1,600 cubic yards Blasting Material 1,600 lbs ANFO Powder Factor 1 factor Total Pounds Per Day 267 lbs/day

CO emission factor 67 lbs/ton explosive

NOX emission factor 17 lbs/ton explosive

PM10 emission factor 46 kg/tonne explosive

PM2.5 emission factor 5.1 kg/tonne explosive

CO emissions 8.93 lbs/day

NOX emissions 2.27 lbs/day

PM10 emissions 13.63 lbs/day

PM2.5 emissions 1.36 lbs/day

Notes: lb = pounds; CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = oxides of

Source: United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995. AP‐42, Volume I, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: Chapter 13.3 Explosives Detonation. Available: < http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s03.pdf>. Accessed October 2009. Australian Government Department of Environment. 2008. National Pollutant Inventory Emission Estimation Technique

Slab Creek Fugitive Dust ‐ Truck Loading Emissions

Truck Loading Fugitive Dust Emission Factors 1.3 1.4 EFD = k x (0.0032) x ((U/5) )/((M/2) ) Variable Amount Units

EF (PM10) 0.056 lb/ton

EF (PM2.5) 0.009 lb/ton k (PM10) 0.35 factor k (PM2.5) 0.053 factor U (mean wind speed) 4.92 miles/hr M (moisture content) 12% percent Soil density (CalEEMod default) 1.26 tons/cy Rip rap density 2.23 tons/cy E (lbs) = EF (lb/ton) x TP (tons)

Total Daily Materials Materials Total Materials Moved Moved Moved Daily PM10 Daily PM2.5 Annual PM10 Annual PM2.5 Construction Phase/Subphase Work Days (cy) (tons) (tons/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) Iowa Creek Configuration Rock/Earth Excavation 2 20 45 22.28 1.25 0.19 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00

Powerhouse Construction Rock/Earth Excavation 36 1,700 3,787 105.19 5.92 0.90 0.11 0.02 Total 0.11 0.02

Rule 403 Control Measures 0.6 percent reduction Work Days Per Week 6 Work Days Per Month 24

Earthwork Fugitive Particulate Matter Emissions PM10 PM2.5 Daily Activity Emission Emission Activity/Phase Activity Work Days Units Factor Factor Daily PM10 Daily PM2.5 Annual PM10 Annual PM2.5 Level (lb/activity)1 (lb/activity)1 (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) Soil Dropping During Excavation Powerhouse Construction (Import) cy 50 34 6.65E-02 1.01E-02 3.32 0.50 0.06 0.01 SFAR Gravel (Import) cy 50 6 6.65E-02 1.01E-02 3.32 0.50 0.01 0.00 Powerhouse Construction (blasting) cy 267 6 6.65E-02 1.01E-02 17.72 2.68 0.05 0.01 Bulldozing, Scraping and Grading - ‐ Powerhouse Construction (On-Site) hr 8.0 16 0.753 0.415 6.02 3.32 0.05 0.03

Slab Creek Construction Emissions (Helicopter)

Total Emissions (lbs/day)

CO2e

Helicoper Emissions LTOs/day Hours/Day Total Days Total Hours Total LTOs ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 (MT) SFAR Gravel and Habitat Bell 206142829.011 6.737 0.201 0.199 3.085 Total 142829.011 6.737 0.201 0.199 3.085

Kilograms/hour operation Total Fuel

Helicopter Emission Factors (gal/hr) ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 CO2e Bell 206 LTO 6.53 0.44 0.09 0.00 0.00 63 Operation 38.26 0.91 0.74 0.02 0.02 370

ROG/HC 1.2663 ratio

PM10/PMTOTAL 0.976 ratio

PM2.5/PMTOTAL 0.967 ratio Average Fuel Weight 6.75 lbs/gal Jet Fuel Emission Factors

CO2 9.57 kg/gal

N2O 0.00031 kg/gal

CH4 0.00027 kg/gal

Source: Switzerland Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) Guidance on the Determination of Helicopter Emissions (http://www.bazl.admin.ch/fachleute/01169/02432/02433/02589/index.html?lang=en) ARB Hydrocarbons Conversion (www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/downloads/tsd/HC_ Conversions.doc) SCAQMD PM2.5 Speciation Appendix A EIA Voluntary Reporting of GHG Program ‐ Emission Factors

EMFAC2011 Emission Rates Region Type: County Region: El Dorado Calendar Year: 2015 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2011 Categories Region CalYr Season Veh_Class Fuel MdlYr Speed PopulationVMT Trips ROG_RUNEX NOX_RUNEX CO2_RUNEX PM10 PM10_RUNEX PM10_PMTW PM10_PMBW PM2.5 PM2_5_RUPM2_5_PMPM2_5_PMBW (miles/hr) (vehicles) (miles/day (trips/day) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/mile) (gms/mile)(gms/mile)(gms/mile) El Dorado 2015 Annual LDA GAS AggregatedAggregated 64919.95 2423600 408650.1 0.030929208 0.108508955 345.4688302 0.046438 0.00168872 0.007999959 0.036749817 0.019297624 0.001548 0.002 0.01575 El Dorado 2015 Annual LDA DSL AggregatedAggregated 427.6244 14371.65 2561.176 0.032840057 0.512667571 326.7646356 0.067437 0.022686739 0.007999958 0.036749814 0.03862171 0.020872 0.002 0.01575 El Dorado 2015 Annual LDT1 GAS AggregatedAggregated 13648.84 451298.1 82212.61 0.150177234 0.362915781 401.0683379 0.049759 0.005008782 0.007999959 0.036749816 0.022278162 0.004528 0.002 0.01575 El Dorado 2015 Annual LDT1 DSL AggregatedAggregated 12.52805 385.6435 66.93772 0.071625062 0.616365227 339.6428788 0.104076 0.0593266 0.007999959 0.036749815 0.072330384 0.05458 0.002 0.01575 El Dorado 2015 Annual LDT2 GAS AggregatedAggregated 30819.94 1099002 193163.5 0.055381655 0.239529986 473.5191978 0.047018 0.002268602 0.007999959 0.036749815 0.019823056 0.002073 0.002 0.01575 El Dorado 2015 Annual LDT2 DSL AggregatedAggregated 12.60786 433.6778 73.14846 0.049061724 0.585149444 334.2186443 0.082816 0.038066505 0.007999958 0.036749816 0.052771094 0.035021 0.002 0.01575 El Dorado 2015 Annual T7 single coDSL AggregatedAggregated 25.22166 1561.159 0 0.34899641 12.43628822 1752.856221 0.332042 0.234302407 0.035999812 0.061739677 0.251018029 0.215558 0.009 0.02646

APPENDIX C: NOISE INFORMATION AND TERMS

Sound, Noise, and Acoustics Background and Terminology Sound and Loudness

Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a liquid or gaseous medium (e.g., air). Noise is generally defined as sound that is unwanted (i.e., loud, unexpected, or annoying). Acoustics is defined as the physics of sound. In acoustics, the fundamental scientific model consists of a sound (or noise) source, a receiver, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source and the obstructions or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path to the receiver determine the sound level and characteristics of the noise perceived by the receiver. Acoustics addresses primarily the propagation and control of sound.

Frequency

The number of sound pressure peaks traveling past a given point in a single second is referred to as the frequency, expressed in cycles per second or Hertz (Hz). A given sound may consist of energy at a single frequency (pure tone) or at many frequencies over a broad frequency range (or band). Human hearing generally is affected by sound frequencies between 20 and 20,000 Hz (20 kilo-Hertz or kHz).

Amplitude

The amplitude of pressure waves generated by a sound source determines the perceived loudness of that source. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in micro-Pascals (µPa). One µPa is approximately 100 billionths (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. Sound pressure amplitudes for different kinds of noise environments can range from less than 100 µPa to 100,000,000 µPa. Because of this wide range of values, sound rarely is expressed in terms of pressure. Instead, a logarithmic scale is used to describe sound pressure level in terms of decibels (dB). The threshold of human hearing (near-total silence) is approximately 0 dB, which corresponds to 20 µPa.

Use of Decibel Scale

Because decibels are logarithmic units, sound pressure levels cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic means. With the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to an increase of 3 dB. In other words, when two sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance is approximately 3 dB higher than the sound level produced by one of the sources under the same conditions. For example, if one automobile produces a sound pressure level of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously produce 73 dB. With the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together produce a sound level approximately 5 dB louder than one source, and 10 equally loud sources together produce a sound level approximately 10 dB louder than the single source.

A-Weighted Decibels

Figure C-1 shows sound levels associated with common sound sources. The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent on many factors, such as sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental sound levels, perception of loudness

Page C-1

is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by filtering frequencies using the standardized A-weighting network. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and community response to noise. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard descriptor for environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A-weighting.

Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels

As previously discussed, doubling sound energy results in a 3-dB increase in sound. However, given a change in sound levels measured with precise instrumentation, the subjective human perception of a doubling of loudness will usually differ from what is measured. Under controlled conditions in a laboratory setting, the trained, healthy human ear can discern 1-dB changes in sound levels when exposed to steady, single-frequency (“pure-tone”) signals in the mid- frequency range (1,000 to 8,000 Hz). In typical noisy environments, noise-level changes of 1– 2 dB are generally not perceptible. However, it is widely accepted that people can begin to detect 3-dB increases in typical noisy environments. Furthermore, an increase of 5 dB is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10-dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness. Therefore, a doubling of sound energy that would result in a 3-dB increase in sound pressure level would generally be perceived as barely detectable (Table C-1).

Table C-1. Approximate Relationship between Increases in Environmental Noise Level and Human Perception

Noise Level Increase, dB Human Perception (Typical) Up to about 3 Not perceptible About 3 Barely perceptible About 6 Distinctly noticeable About 10 Twice as loud About 20 Four times as loud

Source: Egan 1988

Noise-Sensitive Land Uses

Noise-sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Noise-sensitive land uses typically include residences, hospitals, schools, transient lodging, libraries, and certain types of recreational uses.

Page C-2

Source: Caltrans 2009, adapted by AECOM in 2013 Figure C-1. Reference Sound Levels for Common Sources

Page C-3

Noise Descriptors

Noise in our daily environments fluctuates over time. Some fluctuations are minor, but some are substantial. Some noise levels occur in regular patterns; others are random. Some noise levels fluctuate rapidly, others slowly. Some noise levels vary widely, but others are relatively constant.

Various noise descriptors have been developed to describe time-varying noise levels. The following are the noise descriptors that are most commonly used in environmental noise analysis:

• Equivalent Sound Level (Leq): An average of the sound energy occurring over a specified time period. In effect, the Leq is the steady-state sound level containing the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound that actually occurs during the same period. The 1-hour, A-weighted equivalent sound level (Leq[h]) is the energy average of A- weighted sound levels occurring during a 1-hour period, and is the basis for noise abatement criteria used by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

• Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): The highest instantaneous sound level measured during a specified period.

• Day-Night Average Level (Ldn): The energy average of A-weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB penalty applied to A-weighted sound levels occurring during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.).

Sound Propagation

Sound from a localized source (i.e., point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern; therefore, this type of propagation is called spherical spreading. The sound level attenuates (decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point/stationary source as its energy is continuously spread out over a spherical surface (Figure C-2).

Source: Caltrans 2009 Figure C-2. Point Source Attenuation with Distance

Page C-4

Roadways and highways and, to some extent, moving trains consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path; hence these are treated as “line” sources, which approximate the effect of several point sources (Figure C-3). Noise from a line source propagates over a cylindrical surface, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. Therefore, noise from a line source attenuates less with distance than noise from a point source with increased distance.

Source: Caltrans 2009 Figure C-3. Line Source Attenuation with Distance

Vibration

Generally speaking, vibration is energy transmitted in waves through the ground. Because energy is lost as energy is transferred from one particle to another, the vibratory energy is reduced with increasing distance from the source. Vibration attenuates at a rate of approximately 50 percent for each doubling of distance from the source. This approach takes into consideration only the attenuation from geometric spreading. Because additional factors reduce vibration over distance (e.g., damping from soil condition), this approach tends to provide for a conservative assessment of vibration level at the receiver.

Vibration is an oscillatory motion that can be described in terms of the displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is typically described by its peak amplitude and its RMS amplitude. The RMS value can be considered an average value over a given time interval. The peak vibration velocity is the same as the “peak particle velocity” (PPV), generally presented in units of inches per second (in/sec). Peak particle velocity is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration signal, and PPV is generally used to assess the potential for damage to buildings and structures. The RMS amplitude is typically used for assessing human annoyance to vibration.

References

Caltrans. 2009. Technical Noise Supplement, TeNS, A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. November 2009. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/tens_complete.pdf.

Page C-5

This page intentionally left blank.

Page C-6

APPENDIX D: NOISE MODELING DATA

Page D-1

Page D-2

Page D-3

Page D-4

Page D-5

Page D-6

Page D-7

Page D-8

Page D-9

Page D-10

Page D-11

Page D-12