El Dorado District

Combined Request for Qualifications / Request for Proposals For Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 - Environmental Impact Report Professional Services

RFQ/RFP20-08

Project No. 16003.01

August 25, 2020

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California law, it is the policy of the El Dorado Irrigation District to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone, including individuals with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability and require information or materials in an appropriate alternative format; or if you require any other accommodation, please contact the ADA Coordinator at the number or address below at least 72 hours prior to the meeting or when you desire to receive services. Advance notification within this guideline will enable the District to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. The District ADA Coordinator can be reached at: Phone: (530) 642-4045; email: [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION 1 III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3 IV. PROJECT SUMMARY 3 V. PURPOSE 4 VI. SCOPE OF WORK 5 VII. QUESTIONS/ADDENDA 5 VIII. INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED IN PROPOSAL 5 A. CONTENT 5 B. COST OF SERVICES 7 C. NON-DISCLOSURE AND DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSALS 8 IX. SELECTION CRITERIA 8 A. GENERAL 8 B. FINAL SELECTION 9 C. PROTEST PROCEDURE 9

ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A – SCOPE OF WORK (6 pages) EXHIBIT B – PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT SAMPLE (22 pages) EXHIBIT C – NOTICE OF PREPARATION (32 pages) EXHIBIT D – AGENDA, PRESENTATION AND NOTES FROM APRIL 30, 2020 SCOPING MEETING (37 pages) EXHIBIT E – EXEMPLARY COMMENTS RECEIVED ON NOP (59 pages) EXHIBIT F – ZANJERO SCOPE OF WORK FOR HYDROLOGIC MODELING SUPPORT (12 pages)

I. INTRODUCTION

El Dorado Irrigation District (District), an irrigation special district organized and existing under the California Irrigation District Law (Water Code § 20500, et seq.), hereby gives notice that it is now accepting proposals for the preparation of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the District’s Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project (Project) as described in this combined Request for Qualifications (RFQ) / Request for Proposals (RFP).

II. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Proposals must be received by the District via email no later than 3:00 p.m., local time, on Wednesday October 7, 2020, as determined by the email receipt time. Send proposals to [email protected]. Submit your proposal as one (1) PDF formatted file. The email Subject Line should be addressed “Proposal for RFQ/RFP20-08 – Permit 21112 EIR”. NOTE: The District’s email size limit is 20MB.

It is the responsibility of the proposer to assure that the proposal is received prior to the deadline date and time. Proposals received after the submission deadline will not be accepted. EID encourages all proposers to send a test email to the delivery address [email protected] prior to proposal due date to confirm that they have the correct email address.

Proposer may withdraw its proposal by written request via email to [email protected] before the Submittal Deadline. After that time, proposer may not withdraw its proposal for a period of ninety (90) days from the Submittal Deadline.

Before submitting its proposal, proposer must fully inform itself of the terms, conditions, and specifications of the items or services required. Failure to do so will be at proposer’s own risk and it cannot secure relief on the plea of error.

Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations in regard to nondiscrimination in employment because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, marital status, age, medical conditions, disability, or any other reason.

Handwritten corrections made to proposal must be legible and initialed.

Where there are conflicts between unit prices and extended prices, unit prices will govern. Where there are conflicts between words and figures, words will govern.

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 1 of 21 Project No. 16003.01

The District will consider in its award decision, discount payment terms of twenty (20) days or more from receipt of invoice, provided that proposer clearly indicates such discounts in its proposal. Where proposer does not indicate discount payment terms in its proposal, the District will take it to mean that proposer does not offer discount payment terms, and therefore the payment will be considered net 30 days after receipt of invoice.

The District’s acceptance of proposer’s offer shall be limited to the terms herein, including all attachments hereto, unless expressly agreed in writing by the District’s authorized representative. Proposals offering terms other than those shown herein may be declared non-responsive and may not be considered. By submission of a signed proposal, proposer consents to be bound by all terms and conditions set forth in the pages of this solicitation and all attachments hereto, including without limitation the Professional Services Agreement sample (and insurance requirements attached thereto) attached to this RFQ/RFP as Exhibit B.

Proposer hereby agrees that the goods or services offered will meet all the requirements of the specifications or scope of services in this solicitation unless deviations from them are clearly indicated in the proposer’s response. Proposer may submit an attachment entitled “Exceptions for Specification,” which must be signed by proposer’s authorized representative. An explanation must be made for each item to which an exception is taken, giving in detail the extent of the exception and the reason for which it is taken. Proposals failing to comply with this requirement may be considered non-responsive. The District reserves the right not to accept any exceptions to the specifications.

All proposals shall comply with current federal, state, local and other laws relative thereto.

The terms Successful Proposer, Supplier, Vendor, Bidder, and Contractor may be used interchangeably in this solicitation and shall refer exclusively to the person, company, or corporation with whom the District enters into a contract as a result of this solicitation.

All services delivered under this contract must conform to the Safety Orders of the State of California, Division of Industrial Safety.

The El Dorado Irrigation District reserves the right to waive informalities or technicalities in proposals.

Proposal signer represents that he/she is duly authorized to execute and sign documents on behalf of his/her respective entity.

Proposer is responsible for all fees and costs relating to the transportation of goods, performance of services, required registration, licensing, or other related fees. The

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 2 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 proposal price must reflect all and any such required costs. Any required licensing and or registration type obligations must be sufficiently completed at the time of delivery so the goods or services can be immediately put to use for their intended purpose. These costs, licensing, or registrations include, but are not limited to, hauling, trucking fees, shipping, transportation, drive-time, vehicle or equipment registration fees, disposal fees, certifications, special taxes. An exception is made only if costs are clearly required to be listed separately, or if specified differently.

Any changes to this RFQ/RFP are invalid unless specifically modified by the District and issued as a separate addendum document. Should there be any question as to changes to the content of this document, the District’s copy shall prevail.

III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The District is located in El Dorado County, on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Its contiguous service area covers approximately 220 square miles and 100,000 residents, ranging from El Dorado Hills in the west to Strawberry in the east, and from the South Fork American River in the north to the Cosumnes River in the south. The District also owns and operates Project 184, a FERC-licensed hydroelectric project including high mountain lakes in the vicinity of Lake Tahoe.

The District provides treated water, wastewater treatment and disposal, recycled water, and recreation services and operates FERC Hydroelectric Project 184. It is a local public agency, governed by a five-member, elected board of directors with approximately 220 employees. Additional information about the District is available at its website, www.eid.org.

IV. PROJECT SUMMARY

The District currently holds Water Right Permit 21112, issued in 2001 by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Permit 21112 allows the District to make direct diversions from the South Fork American River (South Fork) at Folsom Reservoir; to divert water to storage in Caples, Silver, and Aloha Lakes; and, to re-divert the water released from those upstream reservoirs once it reaches Folsom Reservoir for consumptive uses. The total quantity of water that may be diverted by the District at Folsom Reservoir annually (by a combination of direct diversion and re-diversion of stored water) is 17,000 acre-feet per year. The point of diversion at Folsom Reservoir draws direct diversions from the South Fork along with water previously stored in upstream reservoirs (Caples Lake, Silver Lake, Lake Aloha) that are operated pursuant to the District’s Project 184 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license. Folsom Reservoir is located near the lowest elevation within the District’s service area and, as such, water must be pumped up from the reservoir to the District’s treatment plant for subsequent treatment and distribution. Water Right Permit 21112 currently requires complete application of the water to the authorized beneficial use by December 31, 2020.

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 3 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 The District seeks to modify its existing Water Right Permit 21112 to add authorized points of diversion and re-diversion to more effectively and efficiently meet the future water demands within El Dorado County. The additional points of diversion are proposed at the District’s existing El Dorado Diversion Dam near Kyburz and at Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s (SMUD) Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir or at SMUD’s White Rock Powerhouse Penstock north of Placerville near Chili Bar. In addition, the District proposes to add a point of re-diversion from the El Dorado Diversion Dam at Jenkinson Lake to allow for storage of Permit 21112 water in Jenkinson Lake. These changes to Water Right Permit 21112 will be sought through a Change Petition submitted to the SWRCB, which has jurisdiction over this water right.

The District also seeks to extend the date for completing construction of facilities and demonstrating full beneficial use of Permit 21112 water to December 31, 2040, although the time extension petition is being pursued separately from the change petition to add the additional points of diversion. The petition for the time extension will be submitted separately from the change petition to add additional points of diversion and may be subject to an independent CEQA analysis. The District is determining the appropriate strategy for proceeding with this effort and what, if any, additional CEQA documentation may be necessary to support the time extension petition. For the purposes of this RFQ/RFP, the Project is to add additional points of diversion to Water Right Permit 21112 and does not include the time extension.

The District is the Lead Agency for the purposes of CEQA compliance for the Project. Potential Responsible or Trustee Agencies pursuant to CEQA may include, but are not limited to: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, SWRCB, and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and SMUD.

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the Project and is included in this RFQ/RFP as Exhibit C. The 30-day public review period for the NOP occurred from April 17–May 18, 2020. A scoping meeting was held via teleconference on April 30, 2020. The materials and notes from the April 30, 2020 scoping meeting are included as Exhibit D. During the public review period, the District received approximately 1,200 comments, most of which contain comments in a form letter format. The unique comments received and an example of the form letter comment letter are included in Exhibit E. The NOP and comments received should be considered by proposers when responding to this RFQ/RFP.

V. PURPOSE

The purpose of this RFQ/RFP is to identify firms that meet the qualification threshold defined herein and provides the highest value proposal to prepare an EIR for the Project.

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 4 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 VI. SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work for the professional services being solicited is found in Exhibit A attached to this RFQ/RFP. The successful proposal(s) will demonstrate sufficient staff resources, expertise, relevant experience, and lack of disabling professional conflicts to perform the scope of work, along with demonstrated commitment to cost-control and client service that meet the District’s needs.

VII. QUESTIONS/ADDENDA

Any questions regarding information within this RFQ/RFP shall be submitted in writing via email to Brian Deason at [email protected] and [email protected].

To be considered, questions must be received by the District no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 10, 2020. The District may, if deemed necessary, respond to such questions by issuance of formal written addenda, interpreting or clarifying the requirements of this RFQ/RFP. The District may also issue addenda to modify the RFQ/RFP as deemed advisable by the District. All such addenda shall be part of this RFQ/RFP and binding upon each proposer. The District may, upon inquiry, direct a proposer’s attention to specific provisions of the RFQ/RFP which cover the subject of the inquiry. However, all supplemental information provided by the District during the RFQ/RFP process shall not be binding unless communicated by formal written addenda. All addenda will be posted on the District’s website. Each proposer is solely responsible for obtaining all addenda posted on the District’s website. You are encouraged to sign-up on the District’s website at http://www.eid.org/about- us/advanced-components/enews-sign-up to be notified of addenda postings.

VIII. INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED IN PROPOSAL

A. CONTENT

Each proposal shall be limited to 40 pages (not including transmittal letter and resumes).

Information must be complete and accurate. If during the course of the evaluation Proposer’s information becomes inaccurate, the proposer must immediately notify District in writing.

The proposal must contain sufficient information for an objective evaluation of the consultant’s ability to understand and perform the requisite services. The proposal must reflect what the District could reasonably expect in terms of thoroughness and quality of work product, cost efficiency, and responsiveness. Sub-consultants, if used, must be integrated into this organizational framework. The proposal shall be organized in the following manner and contain the following information:

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 5 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 • Section 1 – Scope of Work State in succinct terms your understanding of the scope of work listed in Exhibit A attached hereto. Identify additional tasks, if any, that you believe are essential or advisable to constitute a more complete scope of work.

• Section 2 – Relevant Experience and Expertise Describe in narrative form the experience and expertise of your firm and/or project team members in providing the service sought by the District. Identify representative clients. Compare and contrast their size, public or private-sector status, location, and operational activities to those of the District. Include a description of the project organization and project team experience.

• Section 3 – Project Team Identify each individual you expect to work on the project team, including sub-consultants, if any. Provide staff organizational chart, brief description of functional role of team members, and summary of the experience of key staff members. Provide resumes for each member of the team. Describe with particularity the specific areas of expertise of each team member, and the specific education, experience, or other information that substantiates that expertise. Specific attention to project team experience shall focus on CEQA review for water rights, water diversions, and hydrologic impact analysis.

• Section 4 – Schedule Provide a schedule demonstrating how your firm proposes to complete the Project. Schedule shall provide a list of tasks and activity for each task on a monthly basis. Include assumptions made in preparing the schedule if necessary. The anticipated date for issuance of a Notice to Proceed is November 2020. The target date for completing the CEQA process is October 2021.

• Section 5 - Quality Assurance and Control; Conflicts Describe your approach to quality assurance and control for your firm’s performance as well as any performance guarantees you offer. Identify all current and reasonably foreseeable actual or potential professional conflicts that could hinder the provision of the requested services, and propose means of managing any such conflicts.

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 6 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 • Section 6 – Client References Provide contact information for representatives of three former or current clients for whom your firm or project team members have performed similar services so that the District may interview these references.

• Section 7 – Contract and Insurance Requirements All successful proposers will be required to execute a contract in the form shown in Exhibit B attached hereto and to meet the insurance requirements of Appendix C to that Exhibit. Please indicate your firm’s willingness and ability to comply with these requirements or describe any exceptions your firm requests. Alterations or changes to the agreement which were not in the proposer’s response may not be made after the selection of the proposal. This includes alterations, exceptions, or changes to the insurance and indemnity provisions. By requiring these requests up front, the District can compare all respondents on an equal footing.

• Section 8 – Addenda Provide confirmation of receipt of all addenda issued by the District in response to this RFQ/RFP, which are posted on the District’s website.

The District may reject a proposal as non-responsive for failure to provide all information requested in this RFQ/RFP.

B. COST OF SERVICES

All proposals must include a complete and current table of all rates and charges to perform all the proposed services with detailed itemization of each task to be performed.

The rates and charges provided shall include all overhead rates to cover costs and other compensation of consultant’s officers, executives, principals (of partnership and sole proprietorships), general managers, engineers, architects, specialists, estimators, lawyers, auditors, accountants, purchasing and contracting agents, expediters, timekeepers, clerks and other personnel employed by consultant whether at the site or in its principal or a branch office for general administration of the work and not specifically included in the list of personnel. Rates and charges shall also include any part of consultant’s capital expenses, including necessary transportation, travel and subsistence expenses of consultant’s employees incurred in discharge of duties connected with performance of the services. The rates and charges shall also include minor expenses

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 7 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 connected with performance of the services such as copies, computers, software, on-line legal research, office supplies, postage, faxes, long-distance telephone calls, telephone, and any other expense incurred to accomplish the work. Note that no separate charges for these items will be allowed. Note also that no administrative charges will be allowed, except a markup of five percent (5%) on sub-consultants’ billings.

C. NON-DISCLOSURE AND DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSALS

Proposals will be held in confidence during the evaluation process until District staff issues Notice of Intent to Award the contract. Thereafter, all proposals will be treated as documents subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Act).

If proposer believes any portion of its proposal contains confidential or proprietary information, exempt from public disclosure under the Act, proposer must label each page containing such information as “Confidential”. The “Confidential Information” label must be clear and legible. Except as compelled by court process, the District will not release any such documentation claimed to be exempt that is submitted in said manner without prior written notice to the proposer.

IX. SELECTION CRITERIA

A. GENERAL

The proposals received shall be subject to an evaluation by the District as deemed appropriate for purposes of selection. The evaluation will be made according to the following criteria:

1. Responsiveness to combined RFQ/RFP

2. Experience and expertise

3. Project team makeup and capabilities

4. Rates and charges, affordability and cost control

5. Evaluations from client references

The evaluation will be made based on the information submitted in the proposal as defined in Section IX.A and IX.B of this RFQ/RFP. Note: Proposals that do not demonstrate direct experience with CEQA review related to water rights, water diversion, and/or hydrologic impacts

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 8 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 by project manager and/or key team members will not be considered to meet the qualification threshold in Section IX. A.2 or A.3.

B. FINAL SELECTION

Proposals will be rated based on the merit of the entire proposal. District staff presently anticipates making contract award recommendations to the District’s Board of Directors at its regularly scheduled meeting of October 26, 2020. Notice of Intent to Award for the professional service contract will be issued prior to the Board meeting at which the contract is considered.

The District reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and to re-issue this RFQ/RFP. The District may waive any minor informalities or irregularities in any proposal that are immaterial and inconsequential in nature. The District reserves the right to request additional written or oral information from proposers to obtain clarification of their proposals.

All proposals become the property of the District. All costs associated with development of the proposal shall be the sole responsibility of the proposing firm and shall not be charged in any manner to the District.

C. PROTEST PROCEDURE

The District will post on its website, www.eid.org, and in the glass case outside the District’s main office the Notice of Intent to Award for Professional Services (NOIA) no later than the Business Day after issuance. Any protest must be submitted via email to [email protected] before 3:00 p.m. of the fifth calendar Day following the issuance of the NOIA. Any delay or failure to submit a protest within the timeline described above will not extend the protest deadline. a. The initial protest must contain a complete statement of the basis for the protest. b. The protest must refer to the specific portion of the document that forms the basis for the protest. c. The protest must include the name, address, and telephone number of the person representing the protesting party. d. The party filing the protest must concurrently transmit a copy of the initial protest document and any attached documentation to all other parties with a direct financial interest that may be adversely affected by the outcome of the protest. Such parties shall include all other proposers who appear to have a reasonable prospect of receiving an award depending upon the outcome of the protest.

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 9 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 e. The procedure and time limits set forth in this paragraph are mandatory and are proposer’s sole and exclusive remedy in the event of a protest. Proposer’s failure to comply with these procedures shall constitute a waiver of any right to further pursue the protest, including filing a Government Code Claim or legal proceedings. A proposer may not rely on a protest submitted by another proposer, but must timely pursue its own protest.

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 10 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF WORK

Introduction

This Scope of Work describes the anticipated tasks necessary to complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the El Dorado Irrigation District’s (District) Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project (Project).

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the Project and is included in this RFQ/RFP as Exhibit C. The 30-day public review period for the NOP occurred from April 17 – May 18, 2020. A scoping meeting was held via teleconference on April 30, 2020. The meeting materials and notes from the April 30, 2020 scoping meeting are included as Exhibit D. During the public review period, the District received approximately 1,200 comments, most of which contain comments in a form-letter format. Exemplary comments received are provided in Exhibit E. The NOP and comments received should be considered by proposers when responding to this RFQ/RFP.

The proposal submitted by the consulting firm (Consultant) must adhere to the format below for describing the services required by the District. However, the Consultant may also propose optional tasks to the scope of services where the Consultant believes that such tasks would be in the District’s best interests and the purpose of the tasks is justified. If Consultant elects to propose an optional task(s), such task(s) shall be considered, but Consultant must provide a responsive proposal to each task specified below. The costs and scope of the proposed optional tasks shall be displayed separately.

Please note that the District has contracted separately with Zanjero for professional services to conduct hydrologic modeling to help inform the analysis in the EIR as well as services to assist with the preparation of the SWRCB change petition for adding points of diversion. Zanjero’s scope of work is provided in Exhibit F to this RFQ/RFP. As described below, the Consultant will be expected to coordinate with Zanjero and provide support for these efforts.

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 11 of 21 Project No. 16003.01

TASK 1 PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

The Consultant shall organize and facilitate regular meetings with the District throughout the Project as described in the following subtasks.

Subtask 1.1 Project Kick-off Meeting The Consultant shall prepare for and facilitate a Project kick-off meeting at the District immediately upon issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Prior to the kick-off meeting, the Consultant shall request any specific documents needed that are relevant to the Project and available in District files. At or prior to the meeting, the District will provide the Consultant with these and any other relevant documents on file. In the meeting, the scope of work, schedule, and communication protocols will be reviewed.

Deliverables: Electronic copies of meeting agenda and minutes, with action items, responsible parties, and due dates. Subtask 1.2 Monthly Meetings Key members of Consultant team shall participate in monthly meetings at the District or via teleconference / web conference throughout the Project. At least one week prior to each meeting, Consultant shall prepare agendas for distribution and approval as well as updated schedule outlining progress, delays, and potential time saving measures to correct for lost time. Minutes of each meeting shall be submitted within one week for District review.

Deliverables: Electronic copies of meeting agendas and minutes, with action items, responsible parties, and due dates.

Subtask 1.3 Project Description and Alternatives Technical Session Meetings The Consultant shall attend up to 5 meetings with the District for the purpose of reviewing, discussing, and developing: 1) the project description and environmental baseline conditions that were included in the NOP to the extent necessary to meet requirements for preparation of the EIR, 2) an appropriate range of alternatives to be considered, and 3) an administrative record and stakeholder distribution lists for each process.

Deliverables: Meeting agendas and minutes, with action items, responsible parties, and due dates. Draft and final project descriptions, baseline conditions, and alternatives for inclusion in the EIR.

Subtask 1.4 SWRCB Change Petition Support

The Project will require SWRCB approval of a change petition for additional points of diversion and re-diversion to Permit 21112. The Consultant should assume 20 hours of the project’s lead technical point of contact will be needed to support this task.

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 12 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 Subtask 1.5 Hydrologic Modeling Support

The Project requires hydrologic modeling to evaluate alternatives and potential impacts to resources associated with, but not limited to, recreation, instream flows, target lake levels, etc.. The District has contracted with Zanjero to perform the hydrologic modeling necessary for the Project. Zanjero’s scope of work is provided as Exhibit F to this RFQ/RFP. In addition to the effort needed to complete Task 1.3 Project Description and Alternatives Technical Session Meetings, the Consultant should assume 40 hours of the project’s lead technical point of contact will be needed to support the modeling effort. The Consultant shall also include appropriate time for relevant resource specialists to consult with Zanjero on interpretation of modeling results and incorporation of the modeling analysis into the CEQA analysis of potential impacts.

TASK 2 PREPARATION OF EIR

The Consultant shall prepare an EIR that is consistent with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines, considers the appropriate environmental factors included in the NOP, and considers comments received during the public scoping process, as outlined in the following subtasks.

Subtask 2.1 Draft EIR Consultant shall prepare a Draft EIR for the District’s public distribution and comment, as outlined in the following subtasks. The Draft EIR shall include at a minimum the following sections: • Table of Contents • Introduction • Summary • Project Description and Environmental Setting • Environmental Analysis • Cumulative Impacts • Growth Inducing Impacts • Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects • Significant and Unavoidable Impacts • Analysis of Alternatives • References • Appendix – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Appendix – Scoping Notice and Notice of Preparation • Appendix – Summary of Scoping Comments Received • Appendices – Other Technical Analyses

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 13 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 Subtask 2.1.1 Technical Studies and Reports The Consultant shall conduct studies and prepare reports as necessary to identify potential impacts and mitigation measures for the appropriate environmental factors as identified in the NOP.

The Consultant shall include in their proposal a description of the scope and content of the anticipated studies and reports needed based on the proposed analysis defined in the NOP and comments received on the NOP.

Wherever appropriate, existing information shall be used from previous environmental documentation processes or other sources. The 1992 EIR for the original P-21112 water right application and the 1999 EIR for the acquisition of 17,000 acre-feet per year of new consumptive water are available upon request.

Deliverables: Electronic copies of draft technical studies and reports for District review. Final technical studies and reports will be incorporated into the Draft EIR.

Subtask 2.1.2 Administrative Draft EIR The Consultant shall prepare an Administrative Draft EIR for District review.

Deliverables: Electronic copy of Administrative Draft EIR.

Subtask 2.1.3 Print-check Draft EIR The Consultant shall revise the Administrative Draft EIR in response to comments provided by the District. The Consultant shall assume the District will provide one consolidated set of comments on the Administrative Draft EIR. Print-check copies of the Draft EIR shall be submitted to the District for final review and approval.

Deliverables: Electronic copy of Print-check Draft EIR.

Subtask 2.1.4 Public Review Draft EIR Based on any final corrections or revisions to the Print-check Draft EIR, Consultant shall provide technical review, including technical editing to ensure that the document is free of grammatical or spelling errors. Consultant shall produce the document for distribution by the District.

Deliverables: Electronic copy of public review Draft EIR that is ready for reproduction.

Subtask 2.1.5 Public Review Meeting Consultant shall complete the tasks necessary to convene a public meeting during the public review period of the Draft EIR. Consultant shall prepare draft meeting materials for District review including meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation, visual aids, and other appropriate handouts describing overview of Project to meeting attendees. Consultant shall prepare a summary of the comments received at the meeting. The District will be responsible for arranging logistics associated

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 14 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 with the meeting, reproduction of meeting materials, and poster printing and mounting.

Deliverables: Electronic copies of meeting agenda, PowerPoint presentation, visual aids, handouts, and summary of comments received at public review meeting.

Subtask 2.2 Final EIR and Findings The Consultant shall prepare a Final EIR consistent with the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines for the District’s public distribution and comment, as outlined in the following subtasks.

Subtask 2.2.1 Administrative Draft Final EIR/ Response to Comments The Consultant shall prepare an Administrative Draft Final EIR by compiling public comments received by the District in response to the circulated Draft EIR, and in coordination with the District, prepare draft responses to comments. Any comments that require revisions to the EIR shall be identified, and the comments and draft responses shall be reviewed and discussed with the District. The EIR shall also be revised as necessary and appropriate for corrections, clarifications, or other changes necessary to the Draft EIR.

Deliverables: Electronic copy of the Administrative Draft Final EIR.

Subtask 2.2.2 Final EIR/ Response to Comments Consultant shall prepare the Final EIR based on comments on the Administrative Draft Final EIR received from the District.

Deliverables: Electronic copy of the Final EIR.

Subtask 2.2.3 CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Consultant shall prepare draft findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations (if necessary), resolution, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as required by CEQA for the District Board of Directors to consider in conjunction with its certification of the Final EIR and submit them to the District for finalizing by District staff. The final MMRP shall be included in the Final EIR.

Deliverables: Electronic copy of the draft CEQA findings, resolution, and MMRP.

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 15 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 Optional Tasks. In addition to those identified above, proposers are invited to propose optional tasks deemed suitable to compliment or expedite completion of the tasks identified within this scope of work within the specified timeframe. The scope and costs associated with optional tasks must be clearly defined in the proposal. Any optional tasks proposed will be evaluated separately from the tasks specified above. The District reserves the right to reject any or any portion of the proposed tasks.

Consultant shall provide the District all electronic copies of documents specified in this scope of work in both original file format and PDF file format.

Schedule. Consultant shall complete the requested services specified in this Scope of Work according to the following general schedule. The Consultant’s proposal shall include a detailed schedule that meets the completion dates specified and includes District review time of all deliverables. The Consultant shall describe how delays due to unforeseen circumstances will be managed to maintain the schedule. The Consultant may identify and recommend opportunities for improved schedule efficiency.

EVENT Target Completion Date

Board consideration of contract award 10/26/2020 Notice to Proceed November 2020 Kick-off Meeting December 2020 Release Draft EIR for public review June 2021 Draft EIR Public Meeting July 2021 Final EIR for Certification by the Board October 2021

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 16 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 EXHIBIT B

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT SAMPLE

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 17 of 21 Project No. 16003.01

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

Between

EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

And

CONSULTANT FIRM NAME

for the

Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 – Environmental Impact Report

Project No. 16003.01

Dated ______, 20___

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 1 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

______

AGREEMENT BETWEEN EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND

CONSULTANT CO NAME

THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is dated this ______day of ______, 20___, in the City of Placerville, State of California, by and between CONSULTANT FIRM NAME, a ______, with a principal place of business at ______, hereinafter referred to as “Consultant” and the EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT, an irrigation special district organized and existing under the California Irrigation District Law (Water Code §20500, et seq.), hereinafter referred to as “District.”

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, stipulated and agreed, the parties agree as follows:

1. Scope of Professional Services. The Consultant shall perform all services described in Appendix A (“Services”), for the compensation set forth in Appendix B (“Compensation”), which appendices are attached and made a part of this Agreement.

2. Term. This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by Consultant and by District (including approval as to form by the District’s Office of the General Counsel). All Services whenever performed shall be deemed performed under this Agreement, and all compensation paid to Consultant on account of the Services performed shall be deemed as payments of the Compensation.

3. Standard of Performance. Consultant represents that it is qualified to perform the Services and that it possesses and will continue to possess at its sole cost and expense, all necessary licenses, registrations, permits, and personnel or will obtain such licenses, registrations, permits and personnel prior to the time required. Consultant also represents that it has extensive knowledge of, and will comply with, all applicable building codes, laws, regulations and ordinances.

4. Subconsultants. Consultant shall perform the Services using the personnel and subconsultants listed in Appendix A. Consultant shall hire only qualified persons or firms who are experienced in performing work of like nature and complexity to the Services, and who agree to be bound to the terms of the Agreement to the extent of this scope of services. Consultant may substitute personnel or subconsultants prior to any such subconsultants commencing work only upon District’s written consent, which may be withheld or delayed in District’s discretion.

5. Representatives for Both Parties. Both parties shall designate a representative, authorized to act on the parties’ behalf with respect to this Agreement. The parties or such authorized representatives shall render required decisions promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of Consultant’s services. The parties may delegate all or some of the representatives’ role and function to some other representative.

6. Indemnification and Liability.

6.1 To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, without limitation, California Civil Code Section 2782), Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless District and its officers, and employees (collectively “Indemnitees”) from and against all claims, loss, cost, damage, injury expense and liability (including court costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and fees of expert consultants and/or expert witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation) but only to the extent that any of the above are actually caused by, any negligent or reckless act or omission, or willful misconduct, of Consultant, any sub-consultant, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, or anyone that they control (collectively “Liabilities”). Consultant

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 2 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

shall reimburse Indemnitees for Indemnitees’ cost to defend themselves against a claim to the extent it is found the resulting loss was a result of Consultant’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct in the performance of its services under this Agreement. Such obligations to reimburse the cost of defense, hold harmless and indemnify any Indemnitee shall not apply to the extent that such Liabilities are caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of any Indemnitee.

6.2 Consultant shall defend (with legal counsel reasonably acceptable to District), indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnitees from all loss, cost, damage, expense, liability or claims, in law or in equity, including attorneys’ fees, court costs, litigation expenses and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses, that may at any time arise for any infringement of the patent rights, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, service mark or any other proprietary right of any person or persons in consequence of the use by District, or any of the other Indemnitees, of articles or Services to be supplied in the performance of this Agreement.

6.3 District shall include a provision in any resulting construction contract with the general contractor on the Work requiring the general contractor to indemnify Consultant for damages resulting from the negligence of the general contractor and its subcontractors. District shall also include a provision in the construction contract with the general contractor on the work requiring the general contractor to name Consultant as an additional insured on its CGL insurance coverage. Consultant shall bear the risk of an inadvertent omission of such provisions. Therefore, Consultant shall review the construction contract prior to bidding to ensure that such provision has been included in the draft of the bid documents.

6.4 Consultant shall place in its subconsulting agreements and cause its subconsultants to agree to indemnities and insurance obligations in favor of District and other Indemnitees in the exact form and substance of those contained in this Agreement.

6.5 District acknowledges that the discovery, presence, handling or removal of asbestos products, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) or other hazardous substances which may presently exist at the Work site is outside of Consultant’s expertise and is not included in the scope of Services Consultant is to perform nor included in Consultant’s insurance. District shall either hire an expert consultant in this field if the Work involves such materials or, the event the hazardous materials consist of naturally occurring asbestos, District shall require the contractor to comply with all applicable requirements of the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and any other applicable governmental requirements relating thereto. Consultant shall not be responsible or be involved in any way with the discovery, presence, handling, or removal of such materials. Consultant shall be responsible to coordinate with District’s expert consultant as required by Appendix A.

7. Notices. District and Consultant shall provide notices to the other in the form of a writing, sent by certified mail return receipt requested, or by overnight courier or delivery service with signature required, as follows:

ATTN BRIAN DEASON ATTN PROJECT MANAGER EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT CONSULTANT FIRM NAME 2890 MOSQUITO RD ADDRESS PLACERVILLE CA 95667 CITY STATE ZIP or to such other place as either party may similarly in writing designate to the other. Notices shall be effective three business days after mailing by certified mail, or upon receipt if delivered by overnight courier or delivery service.

8. Insurance. Consultant shall comply with all requirements of Appendix C, which is attached and made a part of this Agreement.

9. Independent Contractor. Consultant shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor wholly responsible for the manner in which it performs the Services, and fully liable for the acts and omissions of its employees, subconsultants and agents. Under no circumstances shall this Agreement be construed as creating an employment, agency, joint venture or partnership relationship between District and Consultant, and no such relationship shall be implied from performance of this Agreement. Terms in this Agreement referring to direction from District shall be construed as providing for direction as to policy and the result of services only, and not as to

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 3 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

means and methods by which such a result is obtained. Consultant shall pay all taxes (including California sales and use taxes) levied upon this Agreement, the transaction, or the Services and/or goods delivered pursuant hereto without additional compensation, regardless of which party has liability for such tax under applicable law, and any deficiency, interest or penalty asserted with respect thereto. Consultant represents that it will collect, report, and pay all sales and or use taxes to the State Board of Equalization. Upon full payment, the Consultant will issue District a receipt pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 6203, relieving District of all liability for any tax relating to the scope of this Agreement. The Consultant shall pay all other taxes including but not limited to any applicable city, county or other business tax, not explicitly assumed in writing by District hereunder. The Consultant shall comply with all valid administrative regulations respecting the assumption of liability for the payment of payroll taxes and contributions as above described and to provide any necessary information with respect thereto to proper authorities.

10. Conflict of Interest; Confidentiality.

10.1 Consultant represents that it is familiar with Sections 1090 et seq. and Section 87100 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California, and that it does not know of any facts that constitute a violation of said sections. If, following execution of this Agreement, Consultant becomes aware of any such facts, whether presently existing or after-arising, Consultant shall promptly inform District of same, along with a proposal for remedying the violation. District may determine whether the proposal, or any other proposed resolution, is satisfactory, in its sole discretion.

10.2 Consultant represents that it has completely disclosed to District, and if applicable will disclose in the future, all facts bearing upon any possible interests, direct or indirect, which Consultant believes any member of District, or other officer, agent or employee of District or any department presently has, or will have, in this Agreement, or in the performance thereof, or in any portion of the profits thereunder. Willful failure to make such disclosure, if any, shall constitute ground for termination of this Agreement by District for cause. Consultant agrees to comply with all conflict of interest codes adopted by the District and its reporting requirements, including without limitation the Conflict of Interest Code for the El Dorado Irrigation District.

10.3 Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not have any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of Services required under this Agreement. Without limitation, Consultant represents to and agrees with District that Consultant has no present, and will have no future, conflict of interest between providing District the Services hereunder and any interest Consultant may presently have, or will have in the future, with respect to any other person or entity (including but not limited to any federal or state wildlife, environmental or regulatory agency) which has any interest adverse or potentially adverse to District, as determined in the reasonable judgment of District. The provisions of this Section 10 shall remain fully effective indefinitely after termination of Services to District hereunder.

10.4 Consultant acknowledges and agrees that, in the performance of the Services under this Agreement or in the contemplation thereof, Consultant may have access to private or confidential information which may be owned or controlled by District and that such information may contain proprietary or confidential details, the disclosure of which to third parties may be damaging to District. Consultant agrees that all information disclosed by District to or discovered by Consultant shall be held in strict confidence and used only in performance of the Agreement. Consultant shall exercise the same standard of care to protect such information as a reasonably prudent Consultant would use to protect its own proprietary data, and shall not accept employment adverse to District’s interests where such confidential information could be used adversely to District’s interests. Consultant agrees to notify District immediately in writing if it is requested to disclose any information made known to or discovered by Consultant during the performance of or in connection with this Agreement.

10.5 Any publicity or press releases with respect to the Project or Services shall be under District’s sole discretion and control. Consultant shall not discuss the Services or Project, or matters pertaining thereto, with the public press, representatives of the public media, public bodies or representatives of public bodies, without District’s prior written consent. Consultant shall have the right, however, without District’s further consent, to include representations of Services among Consultant's promotional and professional material, and to communicate with persons or public bodies where necessary to perform under this Agreement.

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 4 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

10.6 The provisions of this Section 10 shall remain fully effective indefinitely after termination of Services to District hereunder.

11. Suspension and Termination of Services.

11.1 District may direct Consultant to suspend, delay or interrupt Services, in whole or in part, for such periods of time as District may determine in its sole discretion. District may issue such directives without cause. District will issue such directives in writing. Suspension of Services shall be treated as an excusable delay.

11.2 District may terminate performance of the Services under this Agreement in whole, or from time to time in part, for default, should Consultant commit a material breach of this Agreement, or part thereof, and not cure such breach within ten (10) calendar days of the date of District’s written notice to Consultant demanding such cure. In the event District terminates this Agreement for default, Consultant shall be liable to District for all loss, cost, expense, damage and liability resulting from such breach and termination.

11.3 District may terminate performance of the Services under this Agreement in whole, or from time to time in part, for convenience, whenever District determines that such termination is in District’s best interests. In the event District terminates this Agreement for convenience, Consultant shall be entitled to be paid for Services satisfactorily performed to the termination date, but may recover no other cost, damage or expense.

11.4 Following any termination under this Section 11, Consultant shall:

11.4.1 Stop Services under the Agreement on the date and to the extent specified in the notice of termination;

11.4.2 Terminate and settle all outstanding liabilities and all claims arising out of such termination of orders and subcontracts, with approval or ratification of District to the extent District may require.

11.4.3 Assign to District in the manner, at times, and to the extent directed by District, all right, title, and interest of Consultant under orders and subcontracts so terminated; and

11.4.4 Complete performance of any part of the Services which were not terminated; and

11.4.5 Take such action as may be necessary, or as District may direct, for the protection and preservation of property related to this Agreement which is in Consultant’s possession and in which District has or may acquire an interest.

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 5 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

12. Ownership of Work Product/Public Records Act. Any interest (including copyright interests) of Consultant, in studies, reports, memoranda, computational sheets, drawings, plans or any other documents (including electronic media) prepared by Consultant and delivered to District at any time in connection with the Services, shall be the property of District. Documents not delivered to the District, or prepared by subconsultants or by any other party not subject to this Agreement, shall remain the property of the person or entity that prepared them. To the extent permitted by Title 17 of the United States Code, work product produced under this Agreement and delivered to District shall be deemed works for hire and all copyrights in such works shall be the property of District. In the event that it is ever determined that any works and any former works created by Consultant under this Agreement are not works for hire under U.S. law, Consultant hereby assigns to District all copyrights to such works when and as created. With District’s prior written approval, Consultant may retain and use copies of such works for reference and as documentation of experience and capabilities. Both parties understand and agree that District must comply with the California Public Records Act (“Act”). If Consultant believes that any document or information delivered to District in connection with Consultant’s performance of Services is exempt from public disclosure under the Act, it shall so advise District in writing at the time the document or information is furnished.

13. Audit/Inspection of Records.

13.1 Consultant shall maintain all documents and records prepared by or furnished to Consultant during the course of performing the Services for at least three (3) years following completion of the Services, except that all such items pertaining to hazardous materials shall be maintained for at least thirty (30) years. Such records include, but are not limited to, correspondence, internal memoranda, calculations, books and accounts, accounting records documenting its work under its Agreement, and invoices, payrolls, records and all other data related to matters covered by this Agreement. Consultant shall permit District to audit, examine and make copies, excerpts and transcripts from such records. The State of California or any federal agency having an interest in the subject of Agreement shall have the same rights conferred to District by this section. Such rights shall be specifically enforceable.

13.2 The Consultant shall maintain full and adequate records in accordance with District requirements to show the actual costs incurred by the Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. If such books and records are not kept and maintained by Consultant within a radius of seventy-five (75) miles from the offices of District at 2890 Mosquito Road, Placerville, California 95667, Consultant shall, upon request of District, make such books and records available to District for inspection at a location within said seventy-five (75) mile radius or Consultant shall pay to District the reasonable, and necessary costs incurred by District in inspecting Consultant's books and records, including, but not limited to, travel, lodging and subsistence costs. Consultant shall provide such assistance as may be reasonably required in the course of such inspection. District further reserves the right to examine and reexamine said books, records and data during the three (3) year period following termination of this Agreement or completion of all work hereunder, as evidenced in writing by District, and the Consultant shall in no event dispose of, destroy, alter, or mutilate said books, records, accounts, and data in any matter whatsoever for three (3) years after District makes the final or last payment or within three (3) years after any pending issues between District and Consultant with respect to this Agreement are closed, whichever is later.

14. Non-discrimination. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment, nor against any subconsultant or applicant for a subcontract, because of race, color, religious creed, age, sex, actual or perceived sexual orientation, national origin, disability as defined by the ADA or veteran’s status. To the extent applicable, Consultant shall comply with all federal, state and local laws (including, without limitation, County ordinances, rules and regulations) regarding non-discrimination, equal employment opportunity, affirmative action and occupational-safety-health concerns, shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations thereunder, and shall comply with same as each may be amended from time to time. Consultant shall provide all information reasonably requested by District to verify compliance with such matters. Consultant stipulates, acknowledges and agrees that District has the right to monitor Consultant’s compliance with all applicable non-discrimination requirements, and may impose sanctions upon a finding of a willful, knowing or bad faith noncompliance or submission of information known or suspected to be false or misleading.

15. Disputes. Consultant shall continue its work throughout the course of any dispute, and Consultant’s failure to continue work during a dispute shall be a material breach of this Agreement. Consultant shall continue to receive payment under this Agreement for work that is unrelated to the dispute and completed in accordance with this Agreement.

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 6 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

16. No incidental, etc. damages. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in no event shall District be liable, regardless of whether any claim is based on contract or tort, for any special, consequential, indirect or incidental damages, including, but not limited to, lost profits or revenue, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or the Services performed in connection with this Agreement.

17. California Law. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed in the City of Placerville, El Dorado County, California. Enforcement of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflict of laws rules. Venue for all litigation arising from or relating to this Agreement shall be in El Dorado County, California. Should any clause, provision or aspect of this Agreement be determined at any time to be unenforceable or in contravention of law, then the remaining clauses and provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law and construed to give effect to fullest extent possible the intent of this Agreement.

18. Prevailing Wage Laws. When applicable, the Consultant must comply with all prevailing wage laws applicable to public works projects and related requirements contained in this Agreement. Copies of the general prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute this Agreement, as determined by Director of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, are on file at the District’s office and are deemed included in this Agreement. Upon request, District will make available copies to any interested party. Also, Consultant shall post the applicable prevailing wage rates at the Site. The California Department of Industrial Relations website is www.dir.ca.gov.

19. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, nothing in this Agreement shall operate to confer rights or benefits on persons or entities not party to this Agreement. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

20. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and any written modification shall represent the entire and integrated agreement between the parties hereto regarding the subject matter of this Agreement, shall constitute the exclusive statement of the terms of the parties’ agreement, and shall supersede any and all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, written or oral, express or implied, that relate in any way to the subject matter of this Agreement or written modification. All prior negotiations are merged into this Agreement and shall be inadmissible in any enforcement of this Agreement.

21. No Waiver. The granting of any payments, and any inspections, reviews, approvals or oral statements by any District representative, or certification by any governmental entity, shall in no way limit Consultant’s obligations under this Agreement. Either party’s waiver of any breach, or the omission or failure of either party, at any time, to enforce any right reserved to it, or to require strict performance of any provision of this Agreement, shall not be a waiver of any other right to which any party is entitled, and shall not in any way affect, limit, modify or waive that party’s right thereafter to enforce or compel strict compliance with every provision hereof. This Agreement may not be modified, nor may compliance with any of its terms be waived, except by written instrument executed and approved by fully authorized representatives of District and Consultant.

22. Statutes of Limitation. As between the parties to this Agreement, any applicable statute of limitations for any act or failure to act shall commence to run on the date of District’s issuance of the final Certificate for Payment, or termination of this Agreement, whichever is earlier, except for latent defects. The commencement and running of the statute of limitations for latent defects shall be as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15 or any successor statute.

23. Survival. Without limiting any of the parties’ other rights or obligations arising from this Agreement, and in addition to all other provisions indicated as surviving the termination or expiration of this Agreement, the following provisions will survive any termination or expiration hereunder: 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23.

24. Miscellaneous. Consultant shall not subcontract, assign or delegate any portion of this Agreement or any duties or obligations hereunder unless approved by District in a written instrument executed and approved by District in writing. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall bind the parties, and their permitted successors and assigns. Any provision or portion thereof of this Agreement prohibited by, or made unlawful or unenforceable under

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 7 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

any applicable law of any jurisdiction, shall as to such jurisdiction be ineffective without affecting other provisions or portions thereof of this Agreement. If the provisions of such applicable law may be waived, they are hereby waived to the end that this Agreement may be deemed to be a valid and binding agreement enforceable in accordance with its terms to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law. Captions to sections and subsections are for the convenience of the parties, and are not to be considered when construing this Agreement. The agreements contained herein shall not be construed in favor of or against any party, but shall be construed as if all parties prepared this Agreement. All terms not otherwise defined in this Agreement shall have the meanings provided in the Appendices or, if applicable, in the construction contract with the general contractor on the Project.

25. Attorneys’ Fees. If either party institutes or is required to defend any legal proceeding, action or motion to enforce or interpret the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all costs and expenses, specifically including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees.

26. ADA Compliance. If, in the course of conducting the Services subject to this Agreement, Consultant offers a public program, service, or meeting on behalf of the District, Consultant shall, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California law, offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone, including individuals with disabilities and shall, upon reasonable request provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities including information or materials in appropriate alternative formats.

27. Working during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Consultants are required to review and comply with EID’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) regarding Safe Work Practices/Vendor Access to District Facilities- Personnel during COVID-19 (attached to this Agreement as Appendix E) and complete the Vendor Work Plan included in Appendix E. This SOP is subject to modification at any time. Upon execution of this Agreement, Consultant shall complete the Vendor Work Plan and provide the completed Vendor Work Plan to the Project Manager, Brian Deason at [email protected].

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 8 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

28. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day first mentioned above.

“District” EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

By:______Jim Abercrombie, General Manager

By:______Brian Poulsen, Jr., General Counsel

By:______Elizabeth Leeper, Senior Deputy General Counsel

By:______Brian Deason, Environmental Resources Supervisor

Approved as to form:

______Office of the General Counsel

THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT BE VALID OR EFFECTIVE FOR ANY PURPOSE UNLESS AND UNTIL SIGNED BY THE DISTRICT’S OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL.

“Consultant” CONSULTANT FIRM NAME

By: ______(signed)

______(printed name)

Title: ______

By: ______(signed)

______(printed name)

Title: ______

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 9 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

LIST OF APPENDICES AND SCHEDULES

Appendix A Scope of Services

Appendix B Payments to Consultant

Appendix C Insurance

Appendix D Deliverables

Appendix E District SOP – Safe Work Practices/Vendor Access to District Facilities-Personnel

Schedule 1 Personnel

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 10 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

APPENDIX A – SCOPE OF SERVICES

This is an appendix attached to, and made a part of, the Professional Services Agreement dated ______, 20___ (“Agreement”) between the EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT (“District”) and CONSULTANT FIRM NAME (“Consultant”), for the provision of professional services (“Services”).

Consultant shall provide all the Services described in the District’s Request for Qualifications/Proposals (RFQ/RFP20-08 Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 – Environmental Impact Report Project, dated August 25, 2020 (## pages)) (“RFQ/RFP”) and Consultant’s proposal dated ______, 2020 (## pages) submitted in response thereto RFQ/RFP (“Qualification/Proposal”). The RFQ/RFP and Qualification/Proposal are attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2 to this Appendix A and incorporated herein by reference in accordance with all terms and conditions of the Agreement and all attachments hereto.

END OF APPENDIX A

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 11 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

APPENDIX B - PAYMENTS TO CONSULTANT

1 Amount of Compensation for Services of Consultant

Excluding Additional Services only, the Guaranteed Maximum Payment to Consultant for all Services performed under this Agreement shall not exceed $______, referred to hereafter as the Guaranteed Maximum Price (“GMP”). The GMP includes within its scope the cost of all subconsultants and shall constitute full compensation for the Services.

1.1 Consultant shall be paid for its Services (and for services of its subconsultants) rendered based upon the hourly “Billing Rates” of each Consultant and subconsultant employee as described below, but except for Additional Services, in no event shall Consultant invoice or receive (including subconsultants) any payment exceeding the GMP.

1.2 The Billing Rates used as a basis for payment apply to all of Consultant’s and subconsultants’ principals, professional personnel and others engaged directly on the Project. The Billing Rates shall remain constant throughout this Agreement, and shall not be adjusted for inflation, salary adjustments, cost changes, or any other reason.

1.3 If District and Consultant previously executed a purchase order for services within the scope of the Services of this Agreement, then the services performed and the compensation paid under that purchase order shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement and the previous payments deemed payments against the GMP.

1.4 Consultant may not invoice or receive payment for the GMP greater than Consultant’s percentage completion of the Services, as determined by District based on Services performed. In no event shall Consultant invoice or receive (including subconsultants) payment for fees exceeding the GMP.

1.5 The Billing Rates shall include all overhead rates to cover costs and other compensation of Consultant’s officers, executives, principals (of partnership and sole proprietorships), general managers, engineers, architects, specialists, estimators, lawyers, auditors, accountants, purchasing and contracting agents, expediters, timekeepers, clerks and other personnel employed by Consultant whether at the site or in his principal or a branch office for general administration of the Services and not specifically included in the list of personnel, Consultant’s principal and branch offices other than Consultant’s office at the site. In addition, the hourly rates shall include any part of Consultant’s capital expenses, including necessary transportation, travel and subsistence expenses of Consultant’s employees, incurred in discharge of duties connected with the Services. The Billing Rates shall also include minor expenses connected with the Services such as copies, computers, software, office supplies, postage, faxes, long-distance telephone calls, telephone, and any other expense incurred to accomplish the Services.

2 Work Breakdown Structure (NOT USED)

3 Methods of Payment to Consultant

3.1 For Basic Services on the Project. Consultant shall submit monthly invoices with reasonable detail of the daily time incurred by personnel assigned to the Project, supported by invoices and appropriate backup documentation. Each invoice shall report on Consultant’s total billings. Subconsultants shall be billed at the amount billed to Consultant therefor times 1.05.

3.2 For Additional Services. District shall pay Consultant for Additional Services, as defined below, as

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 12 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

follows:

3.2.1 General. For Additional Services of Consultant’s professional staff engaged directly on the Project, on the basis of a lump sum negotiated between the parties, or, at District’s option, at Consultant’s Billing Rates.

3.2.2 Subconsultants. For Additional Services of subconsultants employed by Consultant to render Additional Services, the amount billed to Consultant therefore times 1.05 for general and administrative expenses.

3.2.3 For Additional Services on an hourly basis, Consultant agrees that all subconsultant billing will be limited to a not-to-exceed amount upon prior written approval of District.

4 Definitions

4.1 “Additional Services” mean services beyond the scope of the Services defined in this Agreement.

4.2 The “Billing Rates” are the hourly rates indicated in Exhibit 2 to Appendix A.

5 Invoices

All payments shall require a written invoice from Consultant in a form acceptable to District. District shall make payment on approved amounts within each invoice within 30 days of receipt.

END OF APPENDIX B

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 13 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

APPENDIX C - INSURANCE

1. Consultant’s Duty to Show Proof of Insurance. Prior to the execution of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish to District satisfactory proof, in the form of certificates of insurance and/or policy endorsements, that Consultant has taken out for the entire period required by this Agreement, as further described below, the following insurance, in a form satisfactory to District and with an insurance carrier satisfactory to District, authorized to do business in California and rated by A. M. Best & Company A- or better, financial category size VII or better, which will protect those described below from claims described below which arise or are alleged to have arisen out of or result from the acts or omissions of Consultant for which Consultant may be legally liable, whether performed by Consultant, or by those employed directly or indirectly by it, or by anyone for whose acts Consultant may be liable:

1.1 Commercial General Liability Insurance

Commercial general liability insurance, written on an “occurrence” basis, which shall provide coverage for bodily injury, death and property damage resulting from operations, products liability, liability for slander, false arrest and invasion of privacy arising out of professional services rendered hereunder, blanket contractual liability, broad form endorsement, products and completed operations, personal and advertising liability, with per location limits of not less than $2,000,000 general aggregate and $1,000,000 each occurrence.

1.2 Business Automobile Liability Insurance

Business automobile liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles.

1.3 Workers’ Compensation Insurance

Workers’ Compensation Employers’ Liability limits not less than the amounts required by law. Consultant’s Workers’ Compensation Insurance policy shall, by endorsement, contain a Waiver of Subrogation as to each named and additional insured. In the event Consultant is self-insured, it shall furnish Certificate of Permission to Self-Insure signed by Department of Industrial Relations Administration of Self-Insurance, State of California.

1.4 Professional Liability Insurance (if applicable)

Professional Liability Insurance, either (a) specific to this Project only, with limits not less than $1,000,000 each claim, or (b) limits of not less than $1,000,000 each claim and aggregate, all with respect to negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with services to be provided under this Agreement, with no exclusion for claims of one insured against another insured. Consultant shall maintain said insurance coverage for a period of five (5) years after the completion of the Services and shall, upon request of District, provide certificates of insurance evidencing Consultant has maintained said coverage.

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 14 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

2. Insurance policies shall contain an endorsement containing the following terms:

2.1 Status of El Dorado Irrigation District as Additional Insured.

On Consultant’s Commercial General Liability policy and Automobile Liability Policy, the El Dorado Irrigation District, and its affiliates, directors, officers, officials, partners, representatives, employees, consultants, subconsultants and agents, shall be named as additional insureds, but only with respect to liability arising out of the activities of the named insured.

2.2 The policies shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the monetary limits of Consultant’s insurance policy.

2.3 Written notice of cancellation, non-renewal or of any material change in the policies shall be mailed to District thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date thereof.

2.4 Consultant’s insurance shall be primary insurance and no other insurance or self-insured retention carried or held by any named or additional insureds other than that amount Consultant shall be called upon to contribute to a loss covered by insurance for the named insured. Any District insurance shall be excess and noncontributing to any insurance available to the District as an additional insured under Consultant’s primary and excess Commercial General Liability policies provided pursuant to this Agreement.

2.5 Certificates of Insurance and Endorsements shall clearly describe the coverage and shall contain a provision requiring the giving of written notice described above in subsection 2.3.

2.6 Other than Professional Liability, any insurance policy written on a claims-made basis is subject to the approval of the District’s Legal Counsel.

2.7 Nothing contained herein shall be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which Consultant or any of its employees or subconsultants may be held responsible for payment of damages resulting from Consultant’s operations.

2.8 If Consultant fails to maintain any required insurance, District may (but is not obligated to) obtain such insurance, and may deduct and retain the cost of any premium so incurred from any sums due Consultant under this Agreement.

END OF APPENDIX C

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 15 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

APPENDIX D – DELIVERABLES LIST

Consultant shall provide the following deliverables:

See Exhibits 1 and 2 to Appendix A.

END OF APPENDIX D

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 16 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING

APPENDIX E – DISTRICT SOP SAFE WORK PRACTICES/VENDOR ACCESS TO DISTRICT FACILITIES-PERSONNEL

This is an appendix attached to, and made a part of the Professional Services Agreement dated ______, 20___ (“Agreement”) between the EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT (“District”) and CONSULTANT FIRM NAME (“Consultant”), for the provision of professional services (“Services”).

[See Attachment]

END OF APPENDIX E

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 17 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING District Standard Operating Procedure SOP No.: HR-121 Safe Work Practices/ Vendor Access to District Facilities-Personnel Original Effective Date: 04/20/2020 1 – 00/00/00 Previous Revisions: 2 – 00/00/00

Department Authority Approval: Divisional Authority Approval Last Revision: 3 – 08/05/20

Page 1 of 4 Jose C Perez (Human Resources Daniel Newsom (Deputy Safety Security Director) Officer)

Section 1.01 Purpose

Provide procedural information and direction regarding required safety measures for contractors, consultants, or vendors (“Vendors”) who have a need to access District facilities and/or interact with District employees. These measures are intended to reduce the risk of exposure to COVID-19 and are in compliance with the pandemic emergency statewide face coverings mandate issued by Governor Newsom on June 18, 2020.

Section 1.02 Intent

This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is intended to provide District personnel with direction and information on the process and safety precautions required prior to allowing Vendors access to District facilities and/or to interact with District personnel. This SOP is supplements HR-120 (SOP). Therefore, Vendors must use non-traditional Personal Protective Equipment (i.e., face coverings) as required by state law when accessing District facilities or interacting with District personnel. This requirement is consistent with the State Health Officer’s order and guidance issued in response to COVID-19 (Order). 1 This SOP will remain in effect until the District determines that Vendors do not pose a risk to District personnel related to the COVID-19 virus.

Section 1.03 Roles and Responsibilities

All District employees are subject to and responsible for ensuring a safe working environment as detailed in the District’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP). When a potential or active hazard exist in the workforce, the District will develop, disseminate, and implement safe work practices to eliminate and/or mitigate the potential or active workplace hazard. As determined by federal, state and local authorities, COVID-19 is considered an active workplace hazard requiring action to mitigate. This by extension applies to all outside personnel (Vendors) accessing District facilities and or while providing services to the District which require interaction with District employees.

1 06/18/2020 State Public Health Officer order and guidance on required use of face coverings in public

Vendors performing work for the District will not interact with District personnel and/or ensure that if interaction is necessary, they will employee social distancing, minimum of six (6) feet and wear a face covering.

In addition, Vendors who interact with District employees and/or access District facilities in the commission of providing service to the District must take the following action if social distancing cannot be maintained at all time:

Use a face-cover, goggles sealed around the eyes and gloves when:

• Inside any District space; • While in a District vehicle; • Engaged in work for the District, when: • Interacting in-person with any District employee or members of the public; • Working in any space visited by District employees or members of the public, regardless of the presence of either at the time; • Working in or walking through common areas, such as hallways, stairways, elevators, and parking facilities; • In any room or enclosed area where other people are present when unable to physically distance. • While outdoors in District or public spaces when maintaining a physical distance of 6 feet from persons is not feasible. The District will work in good faith with any Vendor who believes they may be exempt from wearing a face covering:2

Section 1.04 Scope

This SOP is separate from, and does not amend, revise and/or incorporate the District’s existing respiratory protection program, or any other OSHA/CalOSHA regulated District safety program(s). This SOP is however considered a District safe work practice and must be followed by all District employees as required under the Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) and the Order for all identified active workplace hazards. As such, District employees and Vendors shall adhere to this safe work practice.

Section 1.05 Required Non Tradition Personal Safety Equipment for Vendors

To be clear, when social distancing cannot be achieved, Vendors, and District personnel must wear a face-covering, goggles sealed around the eye and gloves

2 Refer to § 1.07 of this SOP

(latex, Nitrile or similar) prior to the commencement of the work or interaction. Vendors should bring a sufficient supply of these resources to comply with this SOP.

In the event of unexpected circumstances, the District will provide the vendor with the necessary face coverings and/or gloves. This however should be the exception and not the norm as these resources are limited and reserved for District personnel.

Section 1.06 Vendor Access To District Facilities

District personnel assigned as project managers, and or who have secured the services of a Vendor, must obtain prior authorization and/or consult with affected supervisory District personnel before the commencement of work by the Vendor. This will allow District personnel to avoid such locations (preferred) and/or to ensure adequate social distancing strategies.

All projects and work that requires significant vendor/staff contact (donning of PPE or sustained onsite presence) must be reviewed and approved by the Department Director PRIOR to commencing. Those onsite Vendor activities that can be accomplished through avoidance of interaction or social distancing described above must be reviewed and approved by the Division Manager. Work plans shall be developed reviewed by Managers and Supervisors and affected staff. Once the plan is complete it must be submitted to the Division Manager or Director, as appropriate, by email for approval.

Once the work has been completed, EID staff should make sure that all surfaces that were contacted by anyone (Vendor or EID staff), are wiped down and disinfected following CDC Guidelines to prevent a possible secondary exposure risk.

Section 1.07 Vendor Acknowledgement of this SOP

These guidelines and requirements should be shared with all Vendors who require access to EID facilities or interaction with District personnel.

Section 1.08 Standard Deliveries

Standard deliveries such as chemicals and packages (USPS, UPS, and FedEx) do not require distinct approval for each event, however the principles of minimal contact and social distancing still apply. Drinking Water chemical deliveries that require testing should also follow this SOP.

Section 1.09 Attachments / Reference Resources

Vendor Work Plan Vendor:

Type of Work:

Vendor COVID-19 procedures:

Vendor Requirements

Reviewed EID Vendor SOP Yes No

EID Vendor SOP Acknowledgement Signed Yes No

EID Staff Required Yes No Authorizing Vendor Supervisor: Authorizing Vendor Supervisor Signature: Date:

. District Injury and Illness Prevention Program . California Department of Public Health Guidance for the use of face coverings dated, 06/18/2020 . SharePoint

SCHEDULE 1 – PERSONNEL

This is a schedule attached to, and made a part of, the Professional Services Agreement dated ______, 20___ (“Agreement”) between the EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT (“District”) and CONSULTANT FIRM NAME (“Consultant”), for the provision of professional services (“Services”).

See Exhibit 2 to Appendix A.

END OF SCHEDULE 1

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 - EIR CONSULTANT PROJECT NO. 16003.01 BOARD APPROVED PENDING PAGE 18 OF 18 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PENDING EXHIBIT C

NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP)

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 18 of 21 Project No. 16003.01

NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING FOR THE PERMIT 21112 PROJECT

In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 15000 et seq., the El Dorado Irrigation District (District or EID) will be preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for its proposed modification of Water Right Permit 21112 (proposed project or project).

The purpose of this Notice of Preparation (NOP) is to provide an opportunity for the public, interested parties, and public agencies to comment on the scope and proposed content of the EIR. If you are a Responsible or Trustee Agency with jurisdiction by law over natural resources held in public trust, the District needs to know what environmental information germane to your statutory responsibilities should be included in the EIR.

A description of the proposed modification of Water Right Permit 21112, the location of the components related to Water Right Permit 21112, and a listing of probable environmental effects of the modification of Water Right Permit 21112 are provided in the NOP.

The District has determined that the project may result in potentially significant environmental effects and, consequently, an EIR is required; therefore, an Initial Study has not been prepared. The EIR will address the full range of potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project and feasible alternatives to the proposed project that meet CEQA requirements.

DOCUMENT REVIEW & AVAILABILITY: The 30-day public review period begins on April 17, 2020 and ends on May 18, 2020. A copy of the NOP is available for public review at 2890 Mosquito Road, Placerville, CA 95667, or online at http://www.eid.org/regulatory/environmental-docs-ceqa-nepa-.

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING: The District will conduct a public scoping meeting to inform interested parties about the project, and to provide agencies and the public with an opportunity to provide comments on the scope and content of the EIR. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the scoping meeting will be convened via a teleconference format. The public is invited to participate in the scoping meeting by recorded teleconference via the instructions provided below. Members of the public who observe the meeting via teleconference will be given the opportunity to ask questions and/or provide comments on the scope of the analysis to be included in the environmental impact report. The meeting materials are available for download from the District’s web site at www.eid.org. The meeting will be held on April 30, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. To join the meeting using your phone: United States: 1 310-372-7549; Access Code: 281391

PROVIDING COMMENTS ON THIS NOTICE OF PREPARATION: Comments on this NOP must be provided within 30 days. Written and/or email comments on the NOP should be provided at the earliest possible date, but must be received by 5:00 p.m. on May 18. If you wish to comment on the contents of the upcoming EIR, please send your comments (including, if applicable, the name of a contact person in your agency) to:

El Dorado Irrigation District 2890 Mosquito Road Placerville, CA 95667 Attn: Brian Deason, Environmental Resources Supervisor Phone: (530) 642-4064 E-mail: [email protected]

Comments provided by email should include the name and mailing address of the commenter in the body of the email and include “Water Right Permit 21112 Project” in the subject line.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California law, it is the policy of the El Dorado Irrigation District to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone, including individuals with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability and require information or materials in an appropriate alternative format; or if you require any other accommodation for this meeting, please contact the EID ADA coordinator at 530-642-4045 or e-mail at [email protected] at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Advance notification within this guideline will enable the District to make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 PROJECT

This Notice of Preparation (NOP) is intended to provide sufficient information to Responsible and Trustee Agencies, other affected agencies, interested parties, and the public to enable them to make a meaningful response regarding the scope of issues which should be addressed in the Draft EIR, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(a)(1). It contains background information about the process leading up to the proposed project, a project description and location description, and the identification of probable environmental effects of the proposed modifications to Permit 21112.

1 PERMIT 21112 BACKGROUND

Current Permit 21112 The District currently holds Water Right Permit 21112, issued in 2001 by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Permit 21112 allows the District to make direct diversions from the South Fork American River (South Fork) at Folsom Reservoir; to divert water to storage in Caples, Silver, and Aloha Lakes; and, to re-divert the water released from those upstream reservoirs once it reaches Folsom Reservoir for consumptive uses. The total quantity of water that may be diverted by the District at Folsom Reservoir annually (by a combination of direct diversion and re- diversion of stored water) is 17,000 acre-feet per year (AFY). The point of diversion at Folsom Reservoir draws direct diversions from the South Fork along with water previously stored in upstream reservoirs (Caples, Silver, Aloha Lakes) that are operated pursuant to the District’s Project 184 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license. Folsom Reservoir is located near the lowest elevation within the District’s service area and, as such, water must be pumped up from the reservoir to the District’s treatment plant for subsequent treatment and distribution. Water Right Permit 21112 currently requires complete application of the water to the authorized beneficial use by December 31, 2020.

Stakeholders, Other Interested Parties, and CEQA Responsible Agencies The EIR will be used in the planning and decision-making process for adoption and implementation of the proposed Permit 21112 project. The District will serve as the lead agency pursuant to CEQA for the proposed project. Other public agencies that would be expected to use the EIR in their decision-making processes as Responsible or Trustee Agencies, as defined in Sections 21069 and 21070 of CEQA and Sections 15096, 15381, and 15386 of the State CEQA Guidelines, include:

 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) – Trustee Agency for projects that may affect fish, wildlife, or their habitat and potentially a Responsible Agency for issuing a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement should construction activities result in fill of waters of the state;  State Water Resources Control Board – Responsible Agency because it must make a decision on whether to approve the requested modification to Permit 21112;  Regional Water Quality Control Board – potentially a Responsible Agency for issuing Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Quality Certification should construction activities affect waters of the state or U.S.; and  Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) – Responsible Agency because it must make a decision on whether to allow modifications at its White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir. In addition to these agencies, the CEQA document may also be used by the following federal agencies during their environmental review (under the National Environmental Policy Act) for consideration of actions on the project.

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Federal agency that may potentially issue a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit should construction activities result in fill of waters of the U.S.; and

El Dorado Irrigation District Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation 1  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – Federal agency that consults under the Endangered Species Act for projects that may require permits regarding sensitive species of fish, wildlife, or their habitat.

Project Location The project location encompasses areas within and near the South Fork from Kyburz, California to Folsom Reservoir, including Jenkinson Lake. Figure 1 shows the South Fork, location of the existing diversion at Folsom Reservoir, and locations of the proposed diversion near Kyburz and a second proposed diversion at either Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir or the White Rock Penstock.

Project Overview The El Dorado Irrigation District (District) seeks to modify its existing Water Right Permit 21112 to add authorized points of diversion and re-diversion to more effectively and efficiently meet the future water demands within El Dorado County. Water Right Permit 21112 presently allows the District to directly divert or re-divert water supplies from a combination of eastern sources (Jenkinson Lake and/or Forebay Reservoir) (South Fork, Caples Lake, Silver Lake, and Lake Aloha) provided by the operation of Project 184 for consumptive uses at Folsom Reservoir. These locations are near the boundary extremes of the District’s service area requiring long and significant conveyance facilities to provide treatment and delivery of water to customers. The single point of diversion and re-diversion at Folsom Reservoir precludes the District from effectively and efficiently utilizing this supply throughout the entirety of Permit 21112’s authorized place of use. Long-term water supply planning forecasts (including the District’s 2013 Integrated Water Resources Master Plan and the El Dorado County Water Agency 2014 West Slope Update to the Water Resources Development & Management Plan) indicate that a portion of the Permit 21112 water supply will be necessary to serve areas of the District that are east of El Dorado Hills and at a higher elevation (Figure 2). Delivering water to these higher elevation areas of the District’s service area would require extensive energy-intensive pumping of raw and treated water from Folsom Reservoir. Therefore, the District proposes to petition the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to modify Permit 21112 to allow additional upstream points of diversion and re-diversion along the South Fork. The proposed changes to Permit 21112 would allow additional points of diversion and re-diversion, while maintaining the other limitations of the water right, such as place of use, purpose of use, season of diversion, total diversion to storage, and total direct diversion. Also, adding points of diversion under Permit 21112 would increase water supply reliability by maximizing the flexibility to meet demands with multiple points of diversion of the water supply. The additional points of diversion are proposed at the District’s existing El Dorado Diversion Dam near Kyburz and at SMUD’s Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir or at SMUD’s White Rock Powerhouse Penstock north of Placerville near Chili Bar. In addition, the District proposes to add a point of re-diversion from the El Dorado Diversion Dam at Jenkinson Lake to allow for storage of Permit 21112 water in Jenkinson Lake. With these additional points of diversion and re-diversion, water could be diverted from higher elevations under Permit 21112 and then delivered to customers at lower elevations in the District service area. By taking Permit 21112 water supply at the El Dorado Diversion Dam and at Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir or the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock, water can be treated and distributed largely via gravity flow to meet demands throughout the District’s service area. In addition, allowing storage in Jenkinson Lake would help address the imbalance of low water availability and high water demand in the summer months. Water could be taken at the El Dorado Diversion Dam during the snowmelt season, when Jenkinson Lake is forecast not to fill to capacity, and diverted into Jenkinson Lake via the Hazel Creek tunnel and seasonally stored to allow re-diversion of storage during dry months of the year to meet District demands. Figure 3 contains a profile view of the existing diversion, proposed diversions, and locations of future population growth, which demonstrates the elevation differences between these locations and the efficiency benefits to diverting water upstream of Folsom Reservoir. The system would rely mainly on gravity rather than pumping, substantially reducing energy consumption and the costs of water conveyance and delivery, while improving water supply flexibility to meet growing water demand in the District’s service area.

El Dorado Irrigation District 2 Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation

Source: Data provided by EID in 2019 Figure 1 Project Location El Dorado Irrigation District Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation 3

Source: Data provided by EID in 2019

Figure 2 District Supply Area El Dorado Irrigation District 4 Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation

Source: ESRI

Figure 3 Profile View of Existing and Proposed Diversions

El Dorado Irrigation District Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation 5

Time Extension The District also seeks to extend the time for complete application of Permit 21112 water to the authorized beneficial use, by filing a Petition for Extension of Time with the SWRCB. The District seeks to extend the date for completing construction of facilities and demonstrating full beneficial use of Permit 21112 water from December 31, 2020 to December 31, 2040.

Background The SWRCB issued Water Right Permit 21112 to EID on October 16, 2001, pursuant to Application 5645B. The 2001 version of Permit 21112 required that construction begin within five years of the permit date, work be completed by December 31, 2011, and that the water be applied to the authorized use by December 31, 2020. On December 28, 2011, EID filed a petition for an extension of time within which to complete construction work under Permit 21112 by December 31, 2020. The SWRCB approved the extension of time on May 7, 2018.

Proposed Time Extension The SWRCB may grant an extension of time within which to commence or complete construction work or apply water to beneficial use upon a showing of good cause, which includes: (1) due diligence has been exercised; (2) failure to comply with previous time requirements has been occasioned by obstacles which could not be reasonably avoided; and (3) satisfactory progress will be made if an extension of time is granted. EID has continued to make progress and demonstrate due diligence to put Permit 21112 water to beneficial use. In January 2015, the District executed a temporary (5-year) Warren Act Contract with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for use of up to 8,500 acre-feet per year of Permit 21112 water from Folsom Lake. During the 2015 calendar year, EID diverted 5,591 acre-feet of Permit 21112 water from Folsom Lake. In August 2016, the 5-year temporary Warren Act Contract was superseded by a long-term (40-year) Warren Act Contract with Reclamation for use of the full 17,000 acre-feet per year of Permit 21112 water. The provisions of the contract limits EID diversions under Permit 21112 to 8,500 acre-feet per year until such time that EID constructs a temperature control device (TCD) at its Folsom Lake intake facility. EID is making progress towards constructing the TCD and has completed CEQA for the project in May 2019. Reclamation is providing funding to EID to assist with the design and construction of the TCD and in May 2019, Reclamation completed NEPA for that federal action. EID plans to begin construction of the TCD project in summer/fall 2020. Construction is anticipated to take approximately 18 months to complete. Additionally, as described in further detail in this NOP, EID, through a petition to the SWRCB, is seeking to add additional points of diversion and re-diversion to Permit 21112. The additional points of diversion include El Dorado Diversion Dam and either Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir or White Rock Powerhouse Penstock. The additional point of re- diversion is Jenkinson Lake. No new physical infrastructure would be needed to divert Permit 21112 water at the El Dorado Diversion Dam or re-divert water to Jenkinson Lake. Future construction activities would be required to access water from the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir. These construction activities would include installation of raw and treated water pipelines and construction of a new water treatment facility. These efforts would result in increased beneficial use of Permit 21112 water by providing additional flexibility for EID to use Permit 21112 water to meet demands throughout its drinking water system. An extension of time is also warranted because failure to comply with previous time requirements has been occasioned by obstacles which EID could not reasonably avoid. One such obstacle beyond the control of EID is that projected water demand has occurred at a slower rate than forecasted. Other contributing factors affecting water demand beyond the control of EID include: implementation of mandatory water conservation measures (e.g., Senate Bill 7X-7), decreased water availability and use during extended periods of drought (e.g., 2007 – 2016), and general increase in customer awareness of the importance of water conservation. While the timeframe needed to complete construction of facilities needed to deliver Permit 21112 water is largely dependent on a number of factors beyond the control of EID (e.g. population growth, economic conditions, land use decisions), at this time, EID anticipates that a time extension to December 31, 2040 provides a reasonable timeframe to complete construction activities associated with the current Permit 21112 as well as those construction activities

El Dorado Irrigation District 6 Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation

required to add the additional point of diversions at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir. A time extension to December 31, 2040 would also provide a reasonable timeframe for EID to demonstrate full beneficial use of Permit 21112 water. The December 31, 2040 deadline for completing construction of facilities and demonstrating full beneficial use of Permit 21112 water would be consistent with the implementation schedule provided in EID’s 2013 Integrated Water Resources Management Plan (IWRMP). The IWRMP provides a comprehensive program for optimizing the use of EID’s water resources by providing a roadmap for development of future infrastructure and maintenance of existing water, wastewater, and recycled water facilities. The IWRMP implementation schedule for water facilities extends to 2030 and forecasts completion of the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock diversion and water treatment plant completed in 2025.1 However, with projected water demands occurring at a slower rate than forecasted, such infrastructure has not yet been necessary and the anticipated start date for planning and design have been delayed from what was forecasted in the 2013 IWRMP implementation schedule. The District has been mindful of its ratepayers by making efficient use of its existing supplies to meet current demands. This responsible use of existing supplies has allowed EID to avoid premature investments in costly infrastructure that are not yet needed to meet current demands. It is still anticipated that the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock diversion and appurtenant facilities will be needed to meet future demands. However, the projected completion date for constructing these improvements will likely shift from the 2025 date contemplated in the 2013 IWRMP to sometime between 2030 and 2040.

Project Objectives The District is pursuing the proposed project to provide a reliable and affordable supply of high-quality water to its service area. The project objectives are to:

 Meet future water demand as identified in long-term water supply planning efforts. Long-term water supply planning documents show that the District will have increased water demand throughout its service area. To efficiently and reliably meet future water demands, the District is seeking to modify its Water Right Permit 21112 to allow additional points of diversion and re-diversion at strategic upstream locations.  Reduce cost of water conveyance and delivery. Water conveyance utilizing pumping facilities can increase costs of operations compared to a water conveyance system that is gravity-fed or a diversion point that is close to its place of use. The District aims to use the most economical option for water conveyance and delivery by adding points of diversion and re-diversion at upstream locations.  Increase flexibility and reliability in water delivery systems. Water delivery systems are more reliable and efficient when the systems are designed to allow for operational flexibility, including building in redundancies in the event of infrastructure constraints, supply reductions or emergencies. The District is seeking to increase operational flexibility by adding points of diversion and re-diversion at upstream locations.  Maintain compliance with regulatory and legal obligations regarding water operations. Several licenses, permits, agreements, and other requirements control water diversions and releases on the South Fork for the protection of fish, wildlife and water quality. The District would ensure continued compliance with these requirements with implementation of the proposed project.

State Water Resources Control Board Water Rights Modification Process The District is proposing to petition the SWRCB to permanently modify existing Water Right Permit 21112 to allow additional upstream points of diversion/re-diversion. Before approving the change petition, the SWRCB must find that the change will not injure any legal water user and that the change will not have unreasonable effects on fish or wildlife. If the petitioned change has the potential to impact other legal water users or the environment, the SWRCB will inform those who have requested notification about the petition. The District would also be required to notify the Department of Fish and Wildlife of the proposed change under Title 23, Section 794 of the California Code of

1 The potential use of Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir as an additional point of diversion was not contemplated in the IWRMP because this concept was developed more recently than the IWRMP. It is anticipated that if the Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir is selected as an additional point of diversion for Permit 21112, the construction of needed infrastructure would occur on a similar timeline as anticipated for improvements required for the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock diversion. El Dorado Irrigation District Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation 7

Regulations. Other water right holders and the public may object to the proposed change by filing a protest form with the SWRCB. Before the SWRCB can approve the petition, all protests must be resolved, either through negotiation or by the SWRCB following an investigation or hearing. Before approving the change petition, the SWRCB must also comply with CEQA. The SWRCB will rely on the CEQA document prepared by the District. The EIR will contain the information necessary for the SWRCB to make the necessary findings in compliance with CEQA.

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project involves adding upstream points of diversion and re-diversion to the District’s existing water right Permit 21112 at El Dorado Diversion Dam and at either Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir or White Rock Powerhouse Penstock, and adding a point of re-diversion at Jenkinson Lake to store water diverted at the El Dorado Diversion Dam. The existing diversion at Folsom Reservoir under Permit 21112 would be maintained. The maximum amount of water diverted at any one diversion location would be 17,000 AFY, and the total quantity diverted among all points of diversion would not exceed 17,000 AFY. For example, if during a particular year 5,000 AF were diverted at El Dorado Diversion Dam, up to 12,000 AF could be diverted at Folsom Reservoir and/or the point of diversion that would be constructed at either White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir, so long as total cumulative diversion at all points of diversion is no more than 17,000 AF. Thus, the proposed project would add additional points of diversion and re-diversion to Permit 21112, but would maintain the other limitations of the water right, such as season of diversion, total diversion to storage, and total direct diversion.

Existing Infrastructure and Operations (South Fork American River) To aid in understanding the proposed modifications to Permit 21112, this section provides a general overview of existing infrastructure and operations on the South Fork and its tributaries and connected reservoirs associated with the proposed Project. Refer to Figure 4 for selected existing water supply and conveyance infrastructure along the South Fork American River watershed.

Project 184 and Permit 21112 Project 184 includes four reservoirs and associated dams, approximately 22 miles of conveyance facilities (i.e., canals, flumes, tunnels, and siphons), El Dorado Forebay, a 21-megawatt (MW) powerhouse, and other ancillary facilities. Silver Lake, Caples Lake and Lake Aloha are located in the South Fork American River basin. Echo Lake, on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada range, is located in the Upper Truckee River basin. These reservoirs are used to store water in the winter and spring for release to the South Fork and its tributaries for consumptive, hydropower and fish and wildlife uses in the summer, fall and early winter. Permit 21112 allows appropriation of up to 32,931 acre feet (AF) of water annually to be stored in Lake Aloha, Caples and Silver Lakes. Under Permit 21112, up to 17,000 AFY of consumptive water can be diverted and re-diverted from Project 184 sources at Folsom Reservoir. Permit 21112 allows for consumptive use of water previously stored and released for power generation from Caples Lake, Silver Lake, and Lake Aloha, as well as certain direct diversions from the South Fork, all of which have been first used by Project 184 for hydroelectric power generation and/or instream flows.

South Fork American River at El Dorado Diversion Dam and El Dorado Forebay The District currently diverts water from the South Fork at Kyburz at the El Dorado Diversion Dam. Water is currently diverted for hydropower purposes pursuant to the District’s existing pre-1914 and hydropower appropriative water rights. The District currently diverts water for consumptive use at the El Dorado Diversion Dam under its pre-14 rights only. Once diverted, the water is then conveyed via the El Dorado Canal to the El Dorado Forebay, which serves as the terminus of the canal upstream of the El Dorado penstock and powerhouse. Water held in the Forebay is used either to meet consumptive use or for hydropower use. Up to 15,080 AF of water for consumptive use (under the District’s pre-14 water rights) is conveyed via the Main Ditch to the Reservoir 1 Water Treatment Plant. Water for hydropower use (under both the pre-14 water right and the hydropower right) is conveyed into the penstock from the Forebay and through the turbine/generators in the El Dorado Powerhouse. Water used for hydropower is then returned to the South Fork below the powerhouse.

El Dorado Irrigation District 8 Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation

Source: Data provided by EID in 2019

Figure 4 Existing Water Supply Sources (South Fork American River) El Dorado Irrigation District Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation 9

Sly Park Dam and Jenkinson Lake Jenkinson Lake is the main storage reservoir in the District and is formed by Sly Park Dam and dike. Under the District’s water rights Licenses 11835 and 11836, the District is allowed to divert water from the Cosumnes River watershed and either directly use that water or store the water in Jenkinson Lake for later use. Under those water rights, the combined total amount of water that can be beneficially used by direct diversion and withdrawal from storage is 33,400 AFY. The District also has existing physical infrastructure to divert water from the South Fork at the El Dorado Diversion Dam into Jenkinson Lake via the Hazel Creek Tunnel. The Hazel Creek Tunnel originates at the El Dorado Canal and extends 2,200 feet and discharges to Hazel Creek, a tributary to Jenkinson Lake. Water is conveyed from Jenkinson Lake to the Reservoir A Water Treatment Plant (WTP) via a raw water pipeline for treatment, transmission, and distribution. Jenkinson Lake has a maximum capacity of 41,033 acre-feet.

Folsom Reservoir The District uses Folsom Reservoir to divert three water supplies providing water to El Dorado Hills. Water is provided via a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Central Valley Project water service contract and two Warren Act contracts (one for Permit 21112 water) that allow the District’s non-federal water supplies to be conveyed through the federal storage facility.

Water Treatment Facilities The 26-million gallon per day (mgd) Reservoir 1 WTP treats water from the South Fork via Forebay Reservoir. Raw water is diverted at the El Dorado Forebay where it travels in the Main Ditch to the Reservoir 1 WTP. The 56-mgd Reservoir A WTP treats water from Jenkinson Lake. Water treated at Reservoir 1 WTP and Reservoir A WTP are combined to serve the entire District service area. During higher demands, the 19.5-mgd El Dorado Hills WTP, shown in Figure 3, treats raw water from Folsom Reservoir to supply potable water to the El Dorado Hills service zone.

White Rock Penstock and Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir The Upper American River Project contains many components, including several existing facilities operated by SMUD. The Slab Creek Dam is a concrete dam on the South Fork that creates the Slab Creek Reservoir. The Slab Creek Powerhouse is located at the Slab Creek Dam and generates electricity using minimum stream flow releases. Slab Creek Penstock passes through the dam to connect the reservoir with the Slab Creek Powerhouse. White Rock Powerhouse Penstock is aboveground and connects the White Rock tunnel to the White Rock Powerhouse. The White Rock tunnel runs between the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock and Slab Creek Reservoir. The Slab Creek Reservoir operates to facilitate power generation; therefore, water is not stored for any substantial length of time in Slab Creek Reservoir. After going through the Slab Creek Powerhouse, flows are released back into the South Fork at Chili Bar Reservoir, which is part of PG&E’s Chili Bar Project.

Modification of Operations at El Dorado Diversion Dam and Jenkinson Lake

Modification to Permit 21112 The District seeks to change Permit 21112 to allow for direct diversion and re-diversion for consumptive use at the existing El Dorado Diversion Dam near the unincorporated community of Kyburz, California, as shown in Figure 5. The District already diverts water at the El Dorado Diversion Dam for consumptive use and hydropower generation. Water currently diverted for hydropower generation is returned to the South Fork below the El Dorado Powerhouse. To implement the proposed modification to Permit 21112, the District would not divert additional water at El Dorado Diversion Dam due to conveyance capacity restrictions of the canal, but would instead reduce the amount diverted for power generation by the amount designated for consumptive use under modified Permit 21112. For example, if the District diverts 10,000 AFY per year for consumptive use under modified Permit 21112 at El Dorado Diversion Dam, the District would divert 10,000 AFY per year less at El Dorado Diversion Dam for power generation. The total amount of water ultimately diverted from the South Fork at El Dorado Diversion Dam therefore would not change. Because water would be diverted for consumptive use instead of power generation, the Permit 21112 modification would reduce the amount of water returned to the South Fork at the El Dorado Powerhouse. Water would be diverted from the El Dorado Diversion Dam into the El Dorado Canal. From there, water would be diverted into Forebay Reservoir. As is currently done for the District’s pre-1914 water rights, diverted water would be released from Forebay Reservoir into the Main Ditch, which conveys water to the Reservoir 1 WTP.

El Dorado Irrigation District 10 Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation

Source: Figure created by Ascent Environmental in 2019

Figure 5 Water Diversion from El Dorado Diversion Dam El Dorado Irrigation District Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation 11 11

The District is also seeking to add a point of re-diversion at Jenkinson Lake to allow for the storage of Permit 21112 water in Jenkinson Lake. Adding Jenkinson Lake as a point of re-diversion to storage under Permit 21112 would allow water that has been diverted at Kyburz during the snowmelt season (when water is typically most often available) to be put to storage in Jenkinson Lake for use later in the season to better match the District demand pattern. Water diverted at Kyburz can be conveyed to Jenkinson Lake via the Hazel Creek Tunnel. From Jenkinson Lake, water would be released to the Reservoir A WTP for subsequent treatment, transmission, and distribution. No new raw water infrastructure would be needed to divert Permit 21112 water supply at the El Dorado Diversion Dam, and no physical modifications would be needed to convey water via the Hazel Creek Tunnel or to store this water in Jenkinson Lake. The Reservoir 1 WTP and Reservoir A WTP has enough physical capacity to treat the consumptive water made available under the proposed project. Refer to Figure 5 for a schematic of water diversion and conveyance.

Construction Activities As previously described, no new physical infrastructure would be needed to implement this modification to Permit 21112. Therefore, there would be no construction activities associated with this modification to Permit 21112.

Maintenance Activities Maintenance at the El Dorado Diversion Dam, Forebay Reservoir, Jenkinson Lake, Hazel Creek Tunnel, El Dorado Canal, and other existing facilities would continue to occur as it is currently undertaken. Activities include periodic inspection, maintenance, and repairs.

Modifications at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir

Modification to Permit 21112 The District seeks to change Permit 21112 to allow for direct diversion and re-diversion for consumptive use at the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock north of Placerville near Chili Bar Reservoir or at the Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir, just east of the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock. This diversion would be constructed as a connection to SMUD’s existing facilities at either location. SMUD and the District are both parties to the El Dorado – SMUD Cooperation Agreement, an agreement signed in 2005 that contemplates the District’s future construction of an interconnection to SMUD’s White Rock Penstock for the purposes of taking delivery of water supplies unrelated to the proposed Project. The use of SMUD’s White Rock Penstock for diverting Permit 21112 water will require a separate approval from SMUD along with the construction of additional water treatment and conveyance facilities. A raw water conveyance pipeline would be connected to an existing flange at White Rock Penstock. Due to topography, the raw water would need to be boosted over a ridge through the conveyance pipeline to a new WTP. District planning documents have identified a new WTP location south of Placerville in Diamond Springs. After treatment, water would be gravity fed through new conveyance infrastructure to customers west of Placerville. The potential use of Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir as an additional point of diversion was not contemplated in in the 2005 El Dorado – SMUD Cooperation Agreement because this concept was developed more recently than the Agreement. Conceptually, a diversion at Slab Creek Dam would involve construction of a diversion at the dam itself. If the diversion is at Slab Creek Reservoir, an intake structure would be installed upstream of the dam and draw water directly from the reservoir. The diversion at the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir would be implemented on a longer planning horizon than the diversion at Kyburz. Previous planning efforts in the 2013 Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWRMP) indicate the new WTP could initially have a capacity of 10 mgd, with a potential future expansion of up to 44 mgd; however, as the ultimate capacity and utilization of this diversion are not known, the timing and magnitude of initial and phased treatment capacity will be refined in the future. The 2013 IWRMP indicates it would be implemented sometime between 2025 and 2030; however, the timing is likely significantly extended following the recent drought, reduced customer water use trends, new residential and commercial water efficiency standards and future State conservation mandates. The IWRMP also contains a conceptual map of facilities for a White Rock Powerhouse Penstock diversion: the raw water pipeline would generally trend south of the new diversion to a WTP south of Placerville. The treated water conveyance pipeline would generally trend west of the WTP toward Cameron Park and El Dorado Hills. For a diversion at Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir, similar infrastructure would El Dorado Irrigation District 12 Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation

be needed, but would occur further east of the conceptual White Rock Powerhouse Penstock diversion infrastructure. Figure 6 contains a map of the general vicinity in which these facilities may be located. However, these locations may change as development occurs and the geographic demand for water is refined through periodic master planning updates. As a result, precise dates of implementation and details of precise infrastructure locations and characteristics (e.g., pipeline length) are unknown. Therefore, discussions of infrastructure and their location are included here at the programmatic level.

Construction Activities

Raw Water and Treated Water Pipelines Construction activities associated with water pipelines could include:

 Vegetation and tree removal: Vegetation and trees would be removed within and around the pipeline alignment to facilitate construction equipment and trenching. Vegetation and tree removal can be done with heavy equipment or by hand with hand or power tools.

 Trenching, installation of pipe, and backfilling trench: Trenches would be excavated to place pipe in areas where open- cut construction methods are used. Trenches are usually excavated with heavy equipment, such as an excavator. Saw cutting of pavement and pavement restoration may be necessary in roadways. Blasting may be needed in areas with bedrock. Soil is typically stockpiled adjacent to or near the trench, and then used to backfill the trench.

 Trenchless installation of pipe: In areas where trenchless construction is used, methods such as jack and bore, guided auger bore, and horizontal directional drilling could be used. With these methods, the only excavation would be at the entry and exit points for the pipeline bore. The drilling unit would then bore a pathway for the pipeline to be installed. Any excavated areas would be backfilled once the pipeline is installed.

 Staging of equipment and material: Equipment and material staging would be necessary at various locations near the pipeline alignments.

Water Treatment Plant Construction activities associated with the WTP could include:

 Vegetation and tree removal: Vegetation and trees would be removed within and around the WTP site to facilitate construction equipment and activities and the new WTP facility. Vegetation and tree removal can be done with heavy equipment or by hand with hand or power tools.

 Grading: It is likely that the proposed WTP site would need to be graded. Depending on the quality and integrity of the soil at the site, some of it may need to be excavated and replaced with suitable material. Blasting may be needed in areas with bedrock. Access roads may need to be graded if there is not existing adequate access to the site.

 Trenching, installation of pipe, and backfilling trench: Trenches would be excavated to install pipelines and other utilities for connections within the WTP and to connect to the raw water and treated water pipelines. Trenches are usually excavated with heavy equipment, such as an excavator. Blasting may be needed in areas with bedrock. The trenches would be backfilled.

 Construction of WTP facility: The WTP facility construction would likely require heavy equipment use to construct WTP components. Access roads may also need to be paved if there is not existing adequate access to the site.

 Staging of equipment and material: Equipment and material staging would be necessary at and near the WTP site.

El Dorado Irrigation District Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation 13 13

Source: Figure created by Ascent Environmental in 2019

Figure 6 Conceptual Locations of White Rock Powerhouse Penstock/Slab Creek Dam or Reservoir Diversion Facilities

El Dorado Irrigation District 14 Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation

Maintenance Activities

Raw Water and Treated Water Pipelines Maintenance of the raw water and treated water pipelines would be limited to occasional exercising (i.e., opening and closing) of valves to ensure they are operating correctly and maintaining the easement free of large vegetation that would impede access. The pipelines would be accessed for routine maintenance. Once the new pipeline is in service, operation of the system would not change unless there was an emergency.

Water Treatment Plant Consistent with other similar District facilities, the WTP would be manned during normal work hours and operated remotely during the night. Additional employees would be needed for operations activities.

3 PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND OTHER INFORMATION IN THE EIR

Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(a)(1)(C), this section of the NOP describes the probable environmental effects of the proposed project. For each environmental topic area, a summary of environmental conditions is presented followed by a listing of probable environmental effects which will be addressed in the Draft EIR. Also, other pertinent information to be presented in the EIR is briefly described. Finally, resources that would be not be significantly affected by the proposed modifications to Permit 21112 are briefly summarized below. Resources not significantly affected by the project would not be evaluated in the EIR.

EIR Approach The EIR will address the project at both a programmatic and project level. For the proposed point of diversion at El Dorado Diversion Dam, the EIR will conduct a project-level analysis. Operational details of this diversion are known, and their probable environmental impacts can be analyzed at the project level. The amount of water diverted at the El Dorado Diversion Dam would not change from existing conditions because a portion of the water, up to 17,000 AFY, that is currently diverted for hydropower purposes would instead be diverted for consumptive use. No additional infrastructure would need to be constructed to implement the proposed Permit 21112 diversion at the El Dorado Diversion Dam. The timing of these diversions could change from existing conditions, which would result in changes in flows between the El Dorado Diversion Dam and the El Dorado Powerhouse at certain times of the year resulting in potential impacts on resources in this stretch of the South Fork. Additionally, compared to existing conditions, implementation of the proposed project would result in less water being returned to the South Fork below the El Dorado Powerhouse. Therefore, with regard to the proposed diversion at El Dorado Diversion Dam, the EIR would evaluate impacts resulting from changes in diversion timing and changes resulting from less water returned to the South Fork below the El Dorado Powerhouse. The precise dates of implementation and details of precise infrastructure locations and characteristics (e.g., pipeline length) of the facilities needed for the proposed diversion at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir are unknown. Therefore, the EIR will conduct a programmatic evaluation of impacts from the diversion proposed at either the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir. At the time that project details are refined for modifications at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir, additional CEQA review or evaluation may be needed if new impacts not addressed in the EIR would result. Implementation of the proposed Permit 2112 modifications at the White Rock Penstock Powerhouse or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir would require construction of new raw and treated water conveyance pipelines and a new water treatment plant.

Probable Environmental Effects Addressed in Detail in the EIR As required by CEQA, the EIR will describe existing conditions and evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project and a reasonable range of alternatives, including the no-project alternative. It will address direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The EIR will also discuss potential growth-inducing impacts and summarize significant and unavoidable environmental effects. The EIR will identify feasible mitigation measures, if available, to

El Dorado Irrigation District Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation 15

reduce potentially significant project impacts. At this time, the District has identified a potential for environmental effects in the resource areas identified below.

Hydrology and Water Quality El Dorado County contains four major watersheds: the Tahoe Watershed, the Middle Fork American River, the South Fork American River, and the Cosumnes River. The project area is located within the South Fork American River Watershed, and part of the project area (Jenkinson Lake) drains into the Cosumnes River Watershed. The South Fork American River watershed encompasses the central portion of the county, and extends from the Echo Summit west to Folsom Reservoir. Major tributaries within the South Fork American River Watershed include Silver Fork American River, Silver Creek, Slab Creek, Rock Creek, and Weber Creek. Other water features within the watershed include Caples Lake, Silver Lake, Lake Aloha, Weber Reservoir, Ice House Reservoir, Union Valley Reservoir, Junction Reservoir, Camino Reservoir, Brush Creek Reservoir, Slab Creek Reservoir, and Chili Bar Reservoir (El Dorado County 2003). The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) does not have data on the quality of groundwater in the proposed Project area basin, and the Sierra foothill region is not considered to have an identified aquifer (DWR 2016). The EIR will assess the potential effects of the proposed project on the hydrology and water quality in the South Fork below the El Dorado Diversion Dam resulting from changes in diversion/re-diversion of water from the South Fork for consumptive use at multiple diversion points upstream from the existing diversion point at Folsom Reservoir, which includes diversion at the El Dorado Diversion Dam west of Kyburz and at either the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock on the Chili Bar Reservoir or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir north of Placerville. Under the proposed project, the amount of water diverted at the El Dorado Diversion Dam would not change from existing conditions because a portion of the water, up to 17,000 AFY, that is currently diverted for hydropower purposes would instead be diverted for consumptive use. However, the timing of these diversions could change from existing operations, which could affect flows on the South Fork between the El Dorado Diversion Dam and the El Dorado Powerhouse. Additionally, compared to existing conditions, implementation of the proposed project would result in less water being returned to the South Fork below the El Dorado Powerhouse. The proposed diversion point at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir would be a new diversion, which could affect flows on the South Fork below this new diversion point. The EIR will assess the potential impacts of the proposed project related to:

 the changes in timing of flows between the El Dorado Diversion Dam and the El Dorado Powerhouse compared to existing conditions;

 the reduction in flow levels in the South Fork below the El Dorado Powerhouse compared to existing flows, including reduction of flows into Folsom Reservoir;

 the ability to continue to meet instream flow requirements in the South Fork to protect the beneficial uses of this surface water body for municipal and domestic water supply, irrigation, hydropower, recreation, freshwater habitat, spawning, and wildlife habitat;

 the effects on water quality, including water temperature, sediment transport, and changes in turbidity, from reduced flows in the South Fork below the El Dorado Diversion Dam and including into Folsom Reservoir;

 flow levels in the South Fork required to meet the needs of other water rights, contracts, or operational requirements, such as those held by SMUD and Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E); and

 any potential changes in groundwater recharge and groundwater quality along the South Fork from a reduction in flows below the El Dorado Powerhouse and from a change in the timing in flows between the El Dorado Diversion Dam and the El Dorado Powerhouse. Jenkinson Lake would be used for storage of diverted water. Water stored in Jenkinson Lake would then be routed back into the District system for consumptive use. Therefore, the proposed Permit 21112 would not affect outflows from Jenkinson Lake and would not affect the Cosumnes River watershed.

El Dorado Irrigation District 16 Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation

Biological Resources (Aquatic) The South Fork is characterized by deep, fast runs flowing into cascades or falls, deep pools, and riffle habitat that support both native and recreationally important fish species and robust benthic macroinvertebrate communities between the El Dorado Diversion Dam and Folsom Reservoir. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (CVRWQCB 2018) lists cold freshwater habitat as an existing beneficial use on the South Fork from its source to Placerville. Warm freshwater habitat is a potential beneficial use from the source to Placerville and an existing beneficial use from Placerville to Folsom Lake. Fish species in the stretch of the South Fork between El Dorado Diversion Dam and Folsom Reservoir include hardhead, Sacramento pikeminnow, speckled dace, California roach, Sacramento sucker, rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout, prickly sculpin, and riffle sculpin. Rainbow trout and brown trout are widespread in the project area and support an important fishery. Fish species in Jenkinson Lake include rainbow trout, brown trout, Sacramento sucker, California roach, multiple nonnative centrarchid species, and carp. The project elements have the potential to affect flows in the South Fork between El Dorado Diversion Dam and Folsom Reservoir, and therefore, could have potential impacts on aquatic biological resources. The analysis of potential impacts on aquatic biological resources will be informed by modeling of South Fork inflows to Folsom Reservoir, instream flows and water temperatures in affected reaches of the South Fork, and water surface elevations in affected project reservoirs that would occur with implementation of the proposed project. The potential environmental effects related to aquatic biological resources to be addressed in the EIR include:

 the effects on instream flows, water surface elevations, water temperatures, and other stressors for fish species in the South Fork below the El Dorado Diversion Dam, in Jenkinson Lake, and in Folsom Reservoir and the responses of fishery resources to these characteristics over varying hydrologic conditions; and

 the effects on the physical habitat of fish, including spawning habitat, from reduced instream flows in the South Fork below El Dorado Powerhouse and changes in water surface elevations in Jenkinson Lake.

Biological Resources (Terrestrial) Terrestrial wildlife habitats along the South Fork between the El Dorado Diversion Dam and Folsom Reservoir include Sierran mixed conifer, Ponderosa pine, montane hardwood conifer, montane hardwood, blue oak-foothill pine, montane riparian, montane chaparral, and riverine. Sensitive species that may occur near project components include California spotted owl, northern goshawk, foothill yellow-legged frog, and bats. Special-status species of plants may also occur along the river in areas of suitable habitat. Project-related activities that could result in direct effects on terrestrial biological resources include construction of diversion, conveyance, and treatment facilities associated with the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek/Reservoir diversion, and reductions in water flowing downstream of the El Dorado Powerhouse, which could affect habitat in riparian zones. The potential environmental effects related to terrestrial biological resources to be addressed in the EIR include:

 the effects on wetland and riparian vegetation and associated wildlife from reductions in seasonal instream flows in the South Fork below the El Dorado Powerhouse; and

 the potential for the proposed project to directly remove or disturb riparian and other sensitive habitats along the South Fork or elsewhere in the EID service area, such as potential locations for diversion, conveyance, and treatment facilities.

Recreation The South Fork and surrounding area provide extensive water-related and other recreation opportunities. The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins lists water contact and non-contact water recreation as existing beneficial uses of the South Fork. Most of the recreation users include local residents and visitors from throughout the Sacramento region, but the South Fork is also widely known for its whitewater boating opportunities (e.g., kayaking and rafting) and draws visitors from throughout California and beyond. Most boating on the South Fork occurs below Chili Bar Reservoir where sufficient river flows for boating are available nearly all year long as a result of reservoir releases. The river reaches upstream of Chili Bar Reservoir are usually accessible to kayaks and rafts only during the spring when natural runoff provides sufficient flow. The river reaches in the project area are El Dorado Irrigation District Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation 17

utilized by visitors participating in a variety of recreation activities, including picnicking, camping, hiking, fishing, swimming, and nature viewing. Forebay Reservoir, located in Pollock Pines at the end of the El Dorado Canal, is a no- body-contact-reservoir that provides opportunities for picnicking, fishing, nature viewing, and walking. Jenkinson Lake is located within the Sly Park Recreation Area, which provides opportunities for swimming, fishing, motorized boating, picnicking, camping, hiking, horseback riding, and mountain biking. The EIR will provide setting information related to these recreation facilities and uses as well as other recreation resources along the South Fork in the project area, including Marshall Gold Discovery State Historic Park and Henningsen Lotus Park. Because the proposed project has the potential to affect stream flows in the South Fork between the El Dorado Powerhouse and Folsom Reservoir and water levels at Jenkinson Lake, the project elements could also result in impacts to water-related recreational activities. Recreation impacts will be evaluated based on the output of streamflow modeling (including flow change, seasonal timing, and frequency under the range of water-year type conditions), guidance in the El Dorado County River Management Plan, and input received during outreach to river recreation stakeholders. The EIR will assess:

 the effects of changes in and timing of river flows from implementation of the proposed project on the availability and quality of rafting, kayaking, fishing, and other river recreation opportunities or the physical resources that support river recreation (e.g., put in/take out points, shoreline conditions).

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Within the project area, cultural resources may consist of prehistoric and ethnographic sites, as well as historic sites and structures. For example, the most common types of archaeological resources around Placerville are mining sites, homesteads/orchards, and linear features (roads, ditches, railroad grades, etc.) as well as Native American camps and village sites. The proposed project could affect cultural resources by changing water levels below the El Dorado Powerhouse in the South Fork. The proposed project could also affect cultural resources by ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir diversion and related conveyance and treatment facilities. Depending on the presence of certain kinds of cultural resources, potential environmental effects to be addressed in the Draft EIR related to cultural resources may include:

 the effect on fluctuations in water volumes in the South Fork and the potential for degradation to some cultural sites because of changes in water flow;

 the potential to directly remove or disturb cultural resources or tribal cultural resources for construction of infrastructure related to the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir Diversion; and

 the potential to periodically disturb cultural resources or tribal cultural resources during maintenance activities that requires excavation or other ground disturbance.

Geology and Soils The project site is in the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountain range, which is composed of northwest- trending metamorphic and igneous rocks that stretch from Bakersfield to Lassen Peak. The topography of the EID service area varies from rolling hills in the west to steep slopes along sections of the South Fork. The service area is bounded by Sacramento County to the west and the Pollock Pines to the east, and ranges from 500 to more than 4,000 feet in elevation. No seismic hazard zones have been delineated in the proposed project area under the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act. The project area is not considered seismically active. Active faults are those with evidence of displacement during the Holocene period (less than 10,000 years in age). The EID service area includes a portion of the Foothills Fault System, which consists of a series of northwest-trending faults of pre-Quaternary and Quaternary age (over 1.6 million years in age). No active faults or Alquist-Priolo fault zones have been delineated in El Dorado County (El Dorado County 2015; U.S. Geological Survey 2019).

El Dorado Irrigation District 18 Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation

In general, soils in the EID service area include well-drained silt, sandy, and gravelly loams. There are also extensive areas mapped as rock outcrops (EID 2009; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service 1974). The new diversion at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir would involve construction of conveyance lines and a water treatment plant. Operation of the proposed project would involve the use of dams, the El Dorado Canal, reservoirs, and powerhouses to manage the diversion of flows of water in the South Fork for consumptive use. Although the total amount of water diverted at the El Dorado Diversion Dam would not change with the proposed project, the timing of the diversions could change. The EIR will assess the potential impacts from construction and operation of the project elements related to:

 soil erosion or loss of topsoil impacts resulting from grading, earth-moving, or construction-related activities during construction as well as from changes in geomorphology from operation of the proposed project;

 exacerbation of geologic hazards, such as risk of landslides, unstable soils, and other geologic hazards, from construction; and

 destruction of unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geological sites.

Because there are no active faults or Alquist-Priolo fault zones delineated in El Dorado County, the physical changes resulting from implementation of the proposed Permit 21112 modification would have no impact related to exacerbation of seismic hazards. Impacts related to seismic hazards will not be discussed further in the EIR.

Aesthetics The project elements are located in an area with a wide range of landscapes: forested, rugged American River canyon beginning at approximately 3,900 feet elevation at the El Dorado Diversion Dam (approximately 1.5 miles west of the town of Kyburz), and rolling hills containing oak woodlands around the east end of Folsom Lake, which is the location of the existing diversion point for Permit 21112. Much of the land along the South Fork between the El Dorado Diversion Dam and Slab Creek Reservoir is undeveloped U.S. Forest Service land that is moderately forested up to the banks of the river. U.S. 50 is a heavily traveled east-west route across the Sierra Nevada and is a designated state scenic highway east of Placerville (Caltrans 2019). U.S. 50 generally closely follows the South Fork, and motorists have occasional views of the river from U.S. 50 between Kyburz and Riverton. West of Riverton to the community of Fresh Pond, U.S. 50 still generally tracks the South Fork, but views from U.S. 50 are generally blocked by trees. Near Fresh Pond, U.S. 50 and the South Fork diverge from one another. Views of the river from U.S. 50 and other surrounding areas include deep pools, cascades, and large boulders in the river and riparian vegetation, mixed conifers, and vegetated steep slopes along the river. The El Dorado Canal is a 15-foot wide and approximately 22-mile long canal that extends through a forested landscape from the El Dorado Diversion Dam to Forebay Reservoir. The Forebay Reservoir has a surface area of approximately 23 acres, is located in a rural community with almost its entire shoreline visible to drivers along Forebay Road. The reservoir is used by nearby residents as well as other visitors for recreation activities, such as fishing and picnicking. Hazel Creek Tunnel serves as a diversion point for conveying water from the El Dorado Canal to Jenkinson Lake. The Hazel Creek Tunnel is located in a remote area that is not readily accessible to the public. Jenkinson Lake has a surface area of approximately 650 acres, is surrounded by forest and contains recreation facilities such as boat launches, piers, and picnic areas. The White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir diversion and the potential locations of future raw water conveyance lines associated with a new diversion at that location are north of Placerville in an area characterized by rolling foothills with mature oak woodlands. The conveyance lines would extend through portions of Placerville to a new water treatment plant. Placerville contains a mix of rural residential uses, farmland for vineyards and orchards, and urban development.

El Dorado Irrigation District Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation 19

The potential impacts on aesthetics that will be addressed in the EIR include:

 the effects from the changes in flows on the appearance of riparian vegetation, flowing water, and other natural landscape features in and around the South Fork between the El Dorado Powerhouse and Folsom Reservoir;

 the effects on scenic vistas from potential changes in surface water flows in the South Fork below the El Dorado Powerhouse or from construction of new conveyance facilities and a water treatment plant;

 the potential for new conveyance facilities and a water treatment plant in rural areas to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings;

 conflicts with applicable General Plan policies and State Scenic Highway policies related to scenic quality from the new conveyance facilities and water treatment plant in urbanized portions of Placerville; and

 the potential for new facilities associated with a diversion at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir, such as the water treatment plant, to create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Although U.S. 50 is a scenic highway, the project elements would not affect views from U.S. 50. Project facilities located closest to U.S. 50, including the El Dorado Diversion Dam, El Dorado Canal, Hazel Creek Tunnel, and Jenkinson Lake, are not visible from U.S. 50, and flows in the South Fork between the dam and the El Dorado Powerhouse would not change from existing conditions; thus, the project elements would have no impact on scenic resources in a designated scenic highway. Therefore, impacts related to scenic highways will not be discussed in the EIR.

Utilities Water services in western El Dorado County are provided by EID, Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, and Grizzly Flat Community Services District. Wastewater collection and treatment services in the western portion of the county are provided by the two EID wastewater treatment plants or on-site wastewater treatment systems (i.e., septic systems). Electricity and natural gas services in western El Dorado County are provided by PG&E and local propane companies. El Dorado County has franchise agreements with solid waste companies to provide solid waste collection services, as well as recycling and disposal services, for the unincorporated portion of the county, as well as the cities of South Lake Tahoe and Placerville. Most west slope residents and businesses are served by Waste Connections El Dorado Disposal for solid waste collection and disposal. Some utilities, including SMUD and PG&E, use flows on the South Fork as a source for hydroelectric power production. The proposed project would result in a small reduction in flows on the South Fork, which could potentially affect the SMUD and PG&E hydroelectric power supplies. The EIR will assess the potential of the proposed modifications to:

 result in physical impacts because of changes in electricity generation that could occur as a result of flow reduction on the South Fork, and

 generate solid waste during construction of the proposed conveyance lines and water treatment plant that could exceed the capacity of nearby landfills.

Transportation The primary vehicle travel routes in the EID service area include U.S. 50, State Route (SR) 49, and SR 193. The local street network is limited in the EID service area outside of the City of Placerville and El Dorado Hills. Transportation plans that are applicable to the proposed project include the El Dorado County General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element and the El Dorado County Regional Transportation Plan, which designate level of service (LOS) standards and requirements relating to transportation operation and safety. Construction of the new conveyance lines and water treatment plant for the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir diversion would generate construction-related traffic associated with construction worker trips and hauling equipment and materials. The locations of the conveyance lines and water treatment plant are currently unknown and, thus, potential temporary impacts on pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities are unknown at

El Dorado Irrigation District 20 Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation

this time. The EIR will assess the following potential impacts from the proposed project based on a reasonably foreseeable, conservative scenario:

 causing total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within and in the area surrounding the EID service area to change in a way that would be considered a significant impact under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b);

 interference with bicycle paths or sidewalks, such as the El Dorado Trail, as a result of construction activities or the locations of new conveyance lines; and

 potential hazards on local roads or effects on emergency access resulting from construction equipment accessing the project site for the new conveyance lines or water treatment plant. Operation of the proposed changes in EID’s diversion of water for consumptive use along the South Fork would not increase maintenance activities at the existing facilities that would be used by the diversions and, thus, would not result in any transportation-related changes. Operation of the new water treatment plant would require several new employees; however, the increase in trips associated with these new employees would not be substantial and would not result in a significant impact related to increases in VMT or result in a reduction of roadway and intersection operations to below LOS standards or result in conflicts with requirements relating to transportation operation and safety. Therefore, the impact associated with employee vehicular trips would not be discussed further in the EIR.

Air Quality The proposed project is located within the Mountain Counties Air Basin (MCAB). The elevation of MCAB generally increases from west to east. Regional airflows are influenced by the mountains and hills and eastward winds can transport air pollutants from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and the San Francisco Bay Area air basins. The western portions of El Dorado County are in nonattainment for ozone and particulate matter (El Dorado County Air Quality Management District [EDCAQMD] 2019a). Construction of the proposed project would result in some short-term emissions associated with earth-disturbing activities, including grading and clearing, material delivery, hauling, worker commute exhaust emissions, and building construction. Operation of the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions from vehicle trips to and from the water treatment plant and from electricity consumption associated with the new water treatment plant. Additionally, electricity would be required to pump water from the diversion at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir to the new water treatment and conveyance facilities, although this may be offset by pumping avoided by changing the location of the diversion from Folsom Reservoir to the upstream location of White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir. The EIR will assess the potential impacts of the proposed project related to:

 conflicts with or obstructing implementation of the applicable air quality plan associated with operational or construction emissions;

 the potential for operational or construction-related emissions to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ozone or particulate matter, for which the proposed project region is in non-attainment; and

 exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from construction or operation of the project elements. Construction and operation of the project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, this impact will not be discussed in the EIR.

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribute to an increased greenhouse effect and global climate change, which results in sea level rise, changes in precipitation, habitat, temperature, occurrence of wildfires, air pollution levels, and changes in the frequency and intensity of weather-related-events. GHG emissions are attributable in large part to human activities. In El Dorado County, the primary source of GHG is fossil fuel combustion mainly in the transportation sector (estimated at 70 percent of countywide GHG emissions; EDCAQMD 2019b). Other sources that contribute the most GHG emissions in the county include residential sources (approximately 20 percent of countywide GHG emissions)

El Dorado Irrigation District Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation 21

and commercial/industrial sources (approximately 7 percent). The remaining sources of GHG emissions in the county are waste/landfill (approximately 3 percent) and agricultural (less than 1 percent). Construction-related activities associated with the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir diversion new conveyance lines and water treatment plant would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from activities including worker commute trips, haul trucks carrying supplies and materials to and from the project site, and off-road construction equipment (e.g., dozers, graders, excavators). Operation of the water treatment plant and pumping of water from the new diversion at the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir would also use electricity that would result in GHG emissions, although this may be offset by reduction in pumping by changing the point of diversion. The EIR will assess the potential for construction and operation of the proposed project elements to:

 generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; and

 conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, including California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (California Air Resources Board 2017).

Energy PG&E provides electricity and natural gas to customers in El Dorado County. Gas supply and services on the west slope of El Dorado County are also provided by local propane companies. Most project-related energy consumption would result from operation of construction equipment and vehicle trips associated with commute trips by construction workers and haul trucks supplying materials. Energy would be required to construct the new White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir diversion, conveyance lines, and water treatment plant. Energy would be consumed to operate the water treatment plant and pump water from the diversion at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir to the new water treatment and conveyance facilities. The proposed additional points of diversion on the South Fork would reduce the amount of energy needed to meet future water demand in the District’s service area, as this would allow more gravity-fed water conveyance as compared to the amount of energy needed to pump water from the existing Folsom Reservoir diversion to the District service area. The EIR will assess the potential impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project related to:

 wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during project construction or operation; and

 potential conflicts with or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, such as the state’s 2008 Update, Energy Action Plan, which focuses on the provisioning of renewable energy, demand reduction, energy efficiency, reducing VMT, increasing alternative fuels, and recycling (California Energy Commission and California Public Utility Commission 2008).

Noise and Vibration Major sources of noise in the EID service area are generated from stationary activities (e.g., commercial and industrial uses), aircraft operations at the Placerville Airport, and traffic on major roadways and highways, such as U.S. 50. Noise-sensitive uses include residences and recreation uses along the South Fork. Noise impacts would occur was a result of construction of facilities for the diversion at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir. The specific location of the proposed water treatment plant is not currently known, but operation of the proposed conveyance lines would not generate substantial noise, if any. The new water treatment plant could result in some operational noise associated with the plant’s equipment. The EIR will analyze:

 the potential for construction and operation of the water treatment plant and conveyance facilities to generate excessive groundborne vibration or result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels that would exceed standards established by El Dorado County or the City of Placerville in their respective general plans or noise ordinances. El Dorado Irrigation District 22 Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation

The diversion at El Dorado Diversion Dam and changes in operations at Jenkinson Lake would not require any construction activity or changes to operational activities that could generate noise. Therefore, the EIR would not discuss this impact further.

Wildfire The project location is primarily characterized as within very high fire hazard severity zone with small areas of moderate or high fire hazard severity zones, such as in area around the City of Placerville (CAL FIRE 2007, 2009). Implementation of the proposed modifications to Permit 21112 would include new water conveyance lines and a new water treatment plant and would not increase maintenance activities at existing facilities that would be utilized for the proposed project. The new conveyance lines would connect to the existing White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir, which may include mechanical equipment, combustion engines, or powerlines that could generate sparks or serve as an ignition source. However, the new conveyance lines would not exacerbate existing fire risks because they would not contain any of these types of features that could serve as an ignition risk. However, the new water treatment plant could include new powerlines and mechanical equipment. The EIR will assess the potential impacts from the proposed project associated with:

 impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan during construction of the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir diversion conveyance lines and water treatment plant; and

 the potential increase in wildfire ignition risk and resulting exposure of people to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or to uncontrolled spread of wildfire from construction activities or operations at the water treatment plant, which could include powerlines and mechanical equipment. Construction of the new conveyance lines could involve vegetation clearing and ground disturbance in sloped areas. The amount of vegetation cleared in these areas would not be substantial and remaining vegetation adjacent to the conveyance lines would be sufficient to retain soils and minimize the potential for downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of post-fire slope instability, runoff, or other drainage changes. Additionally, best management practices to manage soil erosion and stormwater runoff would be implemented during construction activities, which would reduce the potential for downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of post- fire slope instability, runoff, or other drainage changes during construction. This impact would be less than significant and will not be discussed further in the EIR. The addition of new employees in the project area for operation of the new diversion facilities for the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir would not substantially increase activities that could increase the risk of wildfire ignition. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant and will not be discussed further in the EIR. Operation of the proposed changes in EID’s diversion of water at the El Dorado Diversion Dam and changes in operations at Jenkinson Lake would not include new facilities or increase maintenance activities at the existing facilities and, thus, would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Similarly, operation of the new conveyance lines and water treatment plant would also not result in significant impacts on any emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Therefore, these impacts will not be discussed further in the EIR.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Several hazardous waste sites are located in the EID service area and are generally located within developed areas, such as in Placerville and Diamond Springs, and along major highways or roadways, including US 50 and SR 49. These hazardous waste sites include leaking underground storage tanks, well water contamination, and former mine and sawmill operations (Department of Toxic Substance Control 2019, State Water Resources Control Board 2019). Ultramafic and serpentine rocks are associated with naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). Asbestos occurrences and ultramafic rock outcropping are identified in portions of western El Dorado County (El Dorado County 2015).

El Dorado Irrigation District Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation 23

Construction of the new diversion at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir would include ground-disturbing activities for new conveyance pipelines and the water treatment plant. Ground-disturbing activities could be located in the vicinity of existing hazardous materials sites. Construction activities could include the use and transport of hazardous materials. The EIR will assess the potential impacts from constructing new conveyance lines and a water treatment plant as part of the proposed project related to:

 hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;

 hazards to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, including the potential exposure of people to NOA during construction of the conveyance lines and water treatment plant;

 a significant hazard to the public or the environment as a result of being located on an existing hazardous materials site; and

 impairment or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed modification of operations at the El Dorado Diversion Dam or at Jenkinson Lake would not involve construction activities, other ground-disturbing activities, or use of hazardous materials and, thus, would have no impact associated with creating a significant hazard. Therefore, the modification of operations at El Dorado Diversion Dam will not be discussed further in the EIR in terms of hazards impacts.

Land Use The location of the proposed project is within rural El Dorado County and the City of Placerville. Portions of the proposed project are also located within the Eldorado National Forest. The types of land uses in the District’s service area, throughout which the project elements are located, include undeveloped open space, rural residential areas, farmland, recreation and scenic uses, power production, and urban development. Several land use plans cover the area around the project elements, including the El Dorado County General Plan, Placerville General Plan, Eldorado National Forest Land Management Plan, and the El Dorado County River Management Plan. The EIR will assess the potential impacts of the proposed project related to:

 conflicts with policies intended to mitigate environmental impacts in the El Dorado County River Management Plan, El Dorado County General Plan, Placerville General Plan, and Eldorado National Forest Land Management Plan, associated with the potential changes in flows in the South Fork between the El Dorado Powerhouse and Folsom Reservoir; and

 conflicts with policies intended to mitigate environmental impacts in the El Dorado County General Plan and Placerville General Plan from construction of new conveyance lines and the water treatment plant. The new water conveyance pipelines associated with the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir diversion would be located so that it would not result in the physical division of an established community, as the facilities would be located to avoid isolation of communities, such as within existing easements or rights-of-way and/or underground. This impact would not be discussed further in the EIR.

Population and Housing The population of El Dorado County, including portions of the City of Placerville, that is served by EID includes a mix of types of water users, including residential, commercial, agricultural, and public (e.g., schools, governmental facilities). Population growth estimates for the EID service area provided in EID’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) are developed based on population projections in the El Dorado County General Plan and known development proposals (see Table 1). The UWMP documents EID’s water management planning efforts over a 25- year planning period.

El Dorado Irrigation District 24 Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation

Table 1 Historic and Projected Population in the EID Service Area Year Population 2010 107,470 2015 107,578 2020 113,118 2025 118,944 2030 125,069 2035 131,511 2040 138,283 2045 145,045 Source: EID 2016

The UWMP provides future estimates of the number of different types of customers for EID, including the number of residential units. EID anticipates residential growth during the 2015 UWMP planning horizon to increase by more than 13,600 additional dwelling units by 2035 and by more than 17,500 units by 2045 (see Table 2). Table 2 Anticipated Residential Unit Growth in the EID Service Area over Existing Conditions Residential Unit Type 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Single Family 2,206 5,669 8,452 11,091 13,124 14,692 Multi Family 203 905 1,644 2,520 2,702 2,894 Total Residential Units 2,409 6,574 10,096 13,611 15,826 17,586 Source: EID 2016

An objective of the proposed project is to meet future water demand as identified in long-term water supply planning efforts. The District’s intent is to provide more efficient delivery of water to meet the water needs of projected population growth. The EIR will refer to the CEQA documents related to the adopted local general plans for environmental impact analysis of growth inducement, as appropriate under CEQA. The EIR will therefore evaluate:

 whether the proposed project is consistent with the direction of adopted plans, particularly related to the level of planned future growth; and

 the potential for the new water conveyance pipelines and a new water treatment plant associated with the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir diversion to displace existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The changes in diversion/re-diversion that would occur with the proposed modification of operations at the El Dorado Diversion Dam and associated changes in operations at Jenkinson Lake would not result in physical changes that would displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Thus, the proposed project would have no impact related to displacement of people or housing, and the EIR would not discuss this impact further.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources Agriculture and forestry resources are important throughout El Dorado County. As of 2016, 4,553 acres of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, were located in the EID service area (California Department of Conservation no date, California Department of Conservation 2018). El Dorado County contains over 33,600 acres of land under a Williamson Act contract (DOC 2016). Additionally, the county contains an estimated 864,000 acres of forestland, of which 636,000 could be categorized as timberland (El Dorado County 2003). Section 130.21.010 of the El Dorado County Zoning Ordinance established several zoning designations in the county to support agricultural, forest land, and timberland uses: Planned Agricultural, Limited Agricultural, Agricultural Grazing, Timber Production, and Forest Resource.

El Dorado Irrigation District Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation 25

The diversion at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir has the potential to result in the construction of new facilities, such as raw and treated water conveyance pipelines and a new water treatment plant, which could remove from use or preclude the use of those lands for agricultural or forest resource purposes. The potential impacts on agriculture and forestry resources that will be addressed in the EIR include:

 conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest uses or involve other changes which, because of their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; and

 conflicts with existing zoning or cause rezoning of lands zoned for agricultural use, a Williamson Act contract, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.

Public Services Public services provided throughout the EID service area include fire protection, law enforcement, and schools. Fire protection services in the west slope of El Dorado County are provided by 10 separate fire districts and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). CAL FIRE and the fire districts also provide emergency medical services (EMS) to the west slope. The El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement service to the unincorporated areas of the county (El Dorado County 2003). There are 15 school districts providing educational services to students in kindergarten through twelfth grade in the west slope of the county (El Dorado County Office of Education 2019). Construction activities associated with the White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir diversion would generate temporary employment. The increase in temporary and permanent employment would not be substantial and would not result in a substantial increase in demand for public services, including fire and police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities, such that the proposed project would require new or physically altered governmental facilities or adversely affect service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Maintenance at the El Dorado Diversion Dam, Forebay Reservoir, Jenkinson Lake, Hazel Creek Tunnel, El Dorado Canal, and other existing facilities would continue to occur as it is currently undertaken. Maintenance of the new raw water and treated water pipelines would be limited to occasional exercising (i.e., opening and closing) of valves to ensure they are operating correctly. The pipelines would not be accessed for routine maintenance. These project components would not require additional employees; however, several additional employees would be required for operation of the new water treatment plant. These impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant, and therefore will not be discussed further in the EIR.

Mineral Resources Mineral land classification reports and maps have been prepared for portions of El Dorado County. The Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) system developed subsequent to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 characterizes both the location and known or presumed economic value of underlying mineral resources. In general, the majority of the county’s important mineral resource deposits are concentrated in the western third of the county (El Dorado County 2003). Areas underlain by mineral deposits, classified MRZ-2, are located in a north-south trending band through the county, including near Placerville as well as in other small pockets of throughout the western portion of the county. Implementation of the proposed project could construct new facilities that are located within a locally important or known mineral resource area identified in the El Dorado County General Plan or in the Mineral Land Classification of El Dorado County, California (El Dorado County 2004). The EIR would assess potential impacts from the proposed project related to:

 direct loss of availability of a known or locally important mineral resource from the construction of White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir diversion facilities, such as pipelines and a water treatment plant.

El Dorado Irrigation District 26 Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation

The proposed modification of operations at El Dorado Diversion Dam and Jenkinson Lake would not include any physical changes and would have no impact on the availability of a known or locally important mineral resource. Therefore, this impact will not be discussed further in the EIR.

Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts may arise from potential increases in the number of diversion points on the South Fork for consumptive use under EID’s Permit 21112 and construction of new conveyance lines and a new water treatment plant. Alterations in the location of where EID diverts water for consumptive use may also affect operations of facilities belonging to other water providers and hydropower suppliers, including SMUD and PG&E. SMUD and PG&E operate several facilities along the South Fork in the project area and are also required to meet minimum water quality and flow objectives for aquatic resources in the South Fork. The Draft EIR will address cumulative effects of the proposed project in combination with other related water planning efforts in the region and construction activities near the proposed conveyance lines and water treatment plant, including effects related to surface water hydrology, water quality, and fisheries.

Other Information to Be Included in the EIR In addition to the potential significant environmental effects of the proposed project and feasible mitigation measures to address those impacts, the Draft EIR will include other information required either by CEQA or relevant to the decision at hand.

Alternatives Analysis As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d), the Draft EIR will evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and would avoid or substantially reduce a significant impact of the proposed project.

Effects Found Not to be Significant Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, the Draft EIR will identify environmental effects found not to be significant and, therefore, not addressed in detail in the document. Reasons why each possible effect is not significant will be briefly discussed.

Indirect Effects from Growth An objective of the proposed project is to provide a reliable and safe water supply to accommodate the currently contemplated future land use development and population growth of the area, as reflected in adopted general plans. This population growth and associated buildout could result in environmental impacts. These impacts would be considered indirect impacts of the proposed modifications to Permit 21112, as fulfillment of the existing water right through more efficient conveyance and delivery of water would accommodate growth. The EIR would discuss the potential for population growth and buildout to:

 Adversely affect drainage, water quality, and flooding;

 Substantially adversely affect terrestrial and aquatic biological resources and sensitive habitats;

 Require construction of additional recreation facilities, resulting in environmental impacts;

 Damage or destroy cultural or tribal cultural resources;

 Result in increased erosion or exacerbation of geologic hazards;

 Substantially damage scenic resources or degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views;

 Require construction of additional utilities infrastructure, resulting in environmental impacts;

 Increase transportation VMT;

 Increase air pollutant and GHG emissions and energy use;

 Generate noise;

El Dorado Irrigation District Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation 27

 Increase the risk of wildfire and other hazards;

 Require construction of additional facilities to provide public services, resulting in environmental impacts;

 Convert agricultural or forest land to non-agricultural and non-forest uses; and

 Preclude recovery of mineral resources.

Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), the Draft EIR will identify significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project. These changes may include, for example, uses of nonrenewable resources, provision of access to previously inaccessible areas, or accidents that could change the environment in the long term.

REFERENCES

California Air Resources Board. 2017 (November). California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. California Department of Conservation. 2016 (December). The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 2016 Status Report. Available: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Pages/stats_reports.aspx. Accessed April 23, 2019. ———. 2018 (August). El Dorado County Important Farmland 2016. Available: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/ElDorado.aspx. Accessed April 18, 2019. ———. No date. Table A-6, El Dorado County, 2014-2016 Land Use Conversion. Available: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/ElDorado.aspx. Accessed April 18, 2019. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007 (November). Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA, El Dorado County. ———. 2009 (March). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, As Recommended by CAL FIRE, El Dorado County. California Department of Transportation. 2019. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, El Dorado County. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed April 24, 2019. California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission. 2008 (February). 2008 Update, Energy Action Plan. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-100-2008-001/CEC-100-2008-001.PDF. Accessed May 3, 2019. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). 2018. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Fifth Edition: the Sacramento River Basin and The San Joaquin River Basin. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_201805.pdf. Accessed August 27, 2019. Department of Toxic Substance Control. 2019. Envirostor. Available: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=el+dorado+county. Accessed May 19, 2019. Department of Water Resources. 2016 (December). California’s Groundwater, Working Toward Sustainability, Bulletin 118 Interim Update 2016. El Dorado County. 2003 (May). El Dorado County General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/planning/pages/draft_environmental_impact_report_(deir).aspx. Accessed April 23, 2019.

El Dorado Irrigation District 28 Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation

———. 2014. El Dorado County General Plan. Available: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/planning/Pages/adopted_general_plan.aspx. Accessed December 26, 2017. ———. 2015 (January). Asbestos Review Areas, Western Slope, County of El Dorado, California. Available: https://edcgov.us/Government/AirQualityManagement/documents/asbestos%20review%20map%201-22- 15.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2019. El Dorado County Air Quality Management District. 2019a. Air Quality Plans. Available: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/AirQualityManagement/Pages/air_quality_plans.aspx. Accessed May 1, 2019. ———. 2019b. Climate Change. Available: https://edcgov.us/Government/AirQualityManagement/Pages/climate_change.aspx. Accessed May 28, 2019. El Dorado County Office of Education. 2019. Districts and School Listings. Available: http://edcoe.org/districts-and- schools/districts-and-schools-listings. Accessed May 28, 2019. El Dorado Irrigation District. 2009. Acquisition, Permanent Repair, and Operation of the El Dorado Hydroelectric Project and Acquisition of 17,000 Acre-Feet Per Year of New Consumptive Water Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume I: Chapters 1-4. ———. 2016 (June). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. Geotracker. Available: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=el+dorado+county%2C+ca. Accessed May 19, 2019. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service. 1974 (April). Soil Survey of El Dorado Area, California. U.S. Geological Survey. 2019. U.S. Quaternary Faults. Available: https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf. Accessed May 19, 2019.

El Dorado Irrigation District Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation 29

This page intentionally left blank.

El Dorado Irrigation District 30 Permit 21112 Project Notice of Preparation EXHIBIT D

NOP SCOPING MEETING MATERIALS

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 19 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 Meeting Notes 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-444-7301

Permit 21112 Project Scoping Meeting

April 30, 2020, 5:00 p.m. to 6:15 p.m

OVERVIEW

El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) held a teleconference scoping meeting for the proposed modification of Water Right Permit 21112 project. At the meeting, EID gave a presentation about the project and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. After the presentation, EID accepted comments and questions regarding the project and the scope of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared pursuant to CEQA. These meeting notes provide a summary of the oral questions and comments provided by attendees during the scoping meeting.

EID staff present during the meeting included the following:

 Elizabeth Leeper, Senior Deputy General Counsel  Dan Corcoran, Director of Operations  Brian Deason, Environmental Resources Supervisor  Brian Mueller, Director of Engineering

COMMENTS

Theresa Simsiman, California Stewardship Director, American Whitewater  The commenter expressed concern about recreation along a few stretches of the American River (Kyburz, Slab Creek, Chili Bar and below). How is EID addressing the license for the Upper American River Project (UARP) and the Chili Bar Project and below, which have environmental conditions (e.g. minimum instream flow requirements) that need to be met for recreation? Brian Deason responded that UARP is operated by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), which has a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for that project. EID also has a FERC license for Project 184 that dictates its operations of the three reservoirs (Caples, Silver, Aloha) and the South Fork of the American River (SFAR). The Permit 21112 Project is intended to comply and work within the existing parameters of the Project 184 license and other agreements, as well as stipulations in Permit 21112 (existing conditions), which includes target lake levels, minimum flow requirements, etc.  The commenter would like to see modeling of flow regime(s) with the 17,000 acre-foot (AF) diversion to assess how the project would affect license conditions required by the settlement agreement. Brian

Scoping Meeting Notes April 30, 2020 Page 2 Deason responded that the project does not include proposed changes to FERC license conditions for EID or SMUD.  The commenter asked whether it is clear that in-stream flows would not be affected by the 17,000 AF diversion. Brian Deason responded that the EIR will need to evaluate the effects from changes in flow patterns, and that the difference in flow would be observed in the SFAR downstream of EID’s powerhouse. The EIR will look at effects associated with the timing of flows between Kyburz and the powerhouse, which could change. The EIR will also look at reduction in flow levels in SFAR below the powerhouse. Chris Shutes, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance  The commenter asked for the capacity of Hazel Creek Tunnel. Dan Corcoran did not have the exact capacity but wanted to convey that for any tunnel and canal used, the capacities would remain unchanged. If Hazel Creek Tunnel is used, it would be used in the same form it is currently used, without a change in capacity.  The commenter asked where the turnout would be located at White Rock Penstock. Brian Mueller explained it would be at the far end of the penstock where there is an existing turnout ending in a blind flange. It is directly above the White Rock Powerhouse.  The commenter asked what the capacity of the turnout at White Rock Penstock is and asked whether the EIR will evaluate different sizes (capacities) of turnouts at each location, whether it be White Rock Penstock or Slab Creek. Brian Deason noted that the Master Plan identified some capacities for infrastructure, but they have not been fully planned out.  The commenter stated that the capacity of the turnout may affect the evaluation of impacts. Jonas Minton, Senior Water Policy Advisory, Planning and Conservation League, Board of Directors, Friends of the River  The commenter stated he had worked for DWR and the Sacramento Water Forum in the past.  The commenter stated he did not know that anyone on the team or on EID staff or Board was there during the processing of original water right Decision 1635. In 1994, the commenter was hired by the El Dorado County Water Agency (EDCWA) to resolve protests filed against the application and spent a lot of time working through issues with protestors. In looking at Decision 1635, there is specific reference to this issue on page 106, noting that in order to resolve the protests, EID agreed to amend its application to include only the Folsom Reservoir point of diversion. EID made the commitment, in light of the protests, to settle by deleting the upstream points of diversion so the permit would be approved. Benefits of the higher points of diversion were previously known and explored. The commenter stated he thought many of the Board members may not be aware of this commitment, but they should be aware.  The commenter stated that, having been involved in several State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) proceedings, these proceedings do not always go in the direction they were originally intended. Other issues can be raised that become challenging for applicants. A request for time extension as is proposed by EID can raise issues. The commenter’s request is to talk to EID management and the Board and bring them up to speed on the history of this. The commenter offered to provide history to management and Board members.  The commenter will be submitting written comments.

Scoping Meeting Notes April 30, 2020 Page 3

Ron Stork, Staff, Friends of the River  The commenter noted that he was an original member of the Sacramento Water Forum and was also among those who negotiated the SMUD agreement and Project 184 license.  The commenter will be providing comments in writing.  The commenter wanted to reemphasize Jonas Minton’s comments, that we have been through this process before. Protests were associated with the upstream points of diversion that were resolved by letting that water flow down the SFAR to Folsom Reservoir before removing it for consumptive use.  The commenter stated this is not an unprecedented situation. There was a long dispute about where East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) and other Sacramento County water resources folks would divert resources from the Lower American River below Folsom Reservoir, leading to 20 years of litigation and 10 years of negotiation. It was resolved by making sure that points of diversion were low and were not at Folsom South Canal. Instead, the water would flow down the Lower American River for purposes of recreation and fisheries before it was taken out along the Sacramento River, downstream of most of the City of Sacramento. That negotiation allowed the parties (EBMUD and Sacramento County) to construct the Freeport Reservoir. So far, none of those parties have ever tried to break the deal that was made and go back to the original issue disputed over a 30-year period.  The commenter does not think the issue is quite as mammoth as Lower American River, but it is noteworthy that the SFAR below Chili Bar is the most rafted commercial and private rafting river in the Western United States, something for which El Dorado County should be proud of, and that the resolution of those conflicts was meaningful and it was undertaken to help protect those resources along the SFAR. That’s something that, as Mr. Minton encouraged, the staff and the Board need to take seriously as they decide whether to pursue this project. Clyde MacDonald, Member, Sacramento Water Forum, Representative, Save the American River Association  The commenter asked if the 17,000 AF is diverted at Kyburz, what happens to that water and where would it go? Would it end up in Folsom Reservoir. Brian Deason responded that the water would be used consumptively and would not be returned to the SFAR.  The commenter stated EID is looking at 17,000 AF, but previously had a request to the SWRCB for 40,000 AF. The NOP indicates need for another 28,000 or 29,000 AF to get to buildout, which is a very significant amount of water. EID should consider the cumulative effects of the diversion on the river downstream, in Folsom Reservoir (water levels, cold water pool), in the Lower American River (temperature, effects on endangered steelhead, salmon). The Water Forum has a lot of information and can help look at these issues. Nate Rangel, River Outfitter, President, California Outdoors  The commenter stated California Outdoors is a signatory to the UARP agreement, but he did not work on the original agreement for this. The commenter agrees with everything that Jonas Minton and Ron Stork shared, and they will be vitally interested in seeing how this plays out. They will also be providing substantive comments. They have concerns and will be sharing them with EID. The commenter looks forward to working with EID for a resolution that works for EID and the community.

Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Environmental Impact Report Public Scoping Meeting

Agenda Thursday, April 30, 2020 5:00 P.M. – 6:30 P.M. Conference call: 1 310-372-7549 Access Code: 281391

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the scoping meeting will be convened via a teleconference format. The public is invited to participate in the scoping meeting by recorded teleconference by calling the conference call number identified above and following the prompts to enter the access code. Members of the public who observe the meeting via teleconference will initially be muted and will be given the opportunity to ask questions and/or provide comments on the scope of the analysis to be included in the environmental impact report during the meeting. Participants may request to ask questions and provide comments by pressing *5 on the telephone keypad. The meeting materials are available for download from the District’s web site at www.eid.org/CEQA - please click link to the Permit 21112 - NOP EIR and Public Scoping Meeting.

5:00 p.m. Welcome and Introductions Brian Deason, EID Environmental Resources Supervisor

5:05 p.m. Meeting purpose and overview Brian Deason, EID Environmental Resources Supervisor

5:15 p.m. Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project Brian Mueller, EID Director of Engineering Brian Deason, EID Environmental Resources Supervisor

5:45 p.m. Public Comments, Questions and Answers

6:15 p.m. Summary/Next Steps – Brian Deason

6:30 p.m. Meeting Adjourned

Speaker: Brian Deason

Public Scoping Meeting Thursday, April 30, 2020 5:00 P.M. – 6:30 P.M . Speaker: Brian Deason Meeting Agenda

5:00 P.M. Welcome and Introductions Brian Deason, EID Environmental Resources Supervisor

5:05 P.M. Meeting Purpose and Overview Brian Deason, EID Environmental Resources Supervisor

5:15 P.M. Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project Brian Mueller, EID Director of Engineering Brian Deason, EID Environmental Resources Supervisor

5:45 P.M. Public Comments, Questions and Answers

6:15 P.M. Summary/Next Steps – Brian Deason

6:30 P.M. Meeting Adjourned

2 Speaker: Brian Deason Meeting Logistics

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the scoping meeting will be convened via a teleconference format. The public is invited to participate in the scoping meeting by recorded teleconference by calling the conference call number identified below and following the prompts to enter the access code. Members of the public who observe the meeting via teleconference will initially be muted and will be given the opportunity to ask questions and/or provide comments on the scope of the analysis to be included in the environmental impact report during the meeting. Participants may request to ask questions and provide comments by pressing *5 on the telephone keypad.

Conference call: 1 310-372-7549 Access Code: 281391

3 Speaker: Brian Deason Meeting Logistics • The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and meeting materials are available for download from the District’s web site at www.eid.org/CEQA

• Please click link to the Permit 21112 - NOP EIR and Public Scoping Meeting

• If you are experiencing technical difficulties, please contact EID Communications Technician Karen Cross at [email protected]

4 Speaker: Brian Deason Purpose of Public Meeting • Describe Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project • Describe environmental review process • Receive public comments on scope of environmental review • Explain opportunities for public involvement

5 Speaker: Brian Deason Presentation Outline • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) overview • Project overview • Environmental review process • How to provide comments

6 Speaker: Brian Deason Purpose of CEQA • Describe potential environmental impacts • Identify ways to prevent or reduce impacts • Promote coordination with public agencies that have approval authority • Encourage public participation

7 Speaker: Brian Deason CEQA Overview • Notice of Preparation (NOP) • Public scoping . Public comment on scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) • Draft EIR (DEIR) . Public comment on DEIR • Final EIR (FEIR) . EID addresses comments on DEIR

8 Speaker: Brian Deason Presentation Outline • CEQA overview • Project overview • Environmental review process • How to provide comments

9 Speaker: Brian Mueller Background • EID currently holds Water Right Permit 21112 • Permit 21112 allows diversion at Folsom Reservoir for consumptive use

• 17,000 acre-feet per year

10 Speaker: Brian Mueller Background

• A portion of the Permit 21112 water supply will be necessary to serve areas of the District that are east of El Dorado Hills and at a higher elevation • EID seeks to add additional points of diversion so water could be diverted from higher elevations and then delivered to customers at lower elevations in the District service area • Allow water to be delivered mainly by gravity rather than pumping, substantially reducing energy consumption and the costs • Improve water supply flexibility to meet growing water demand in the District’s service area

11 Speaker: Brian Mueller District Supply Area

12 Speaker: Brian Mueller Background

13 Speaker: Brian Mueller Proposed Project • Modification of Permit 21112 . Diversion at El Dorado Diversion Dam

. Re-diversion to storage at Jenkinson Lake . Diversion at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir . Maintain existing diversion at Folsom Reservoir . No change to total maximum diversion (17,000 AFY) • Extension of Permit 21112 to December 31, 2040

14 Speaker: Brian Mueller Project Objectives 1. Meet future water demand as identified in long-term water supply planning efforts 2. Reduce cost of water conveyance and delivery 3. Increase flexibility and reliability in water delivery systems 4. Maintain compliance with regulatory and legal obligations regarding water operations

15 Speaker: Brian Mueller

Existing and Proposed Diversion Locations

16 Speaker: Brian Mueller

El Dorado Diversion Dam • No facility modifications would be needed • Water currently diverted for power generation would be designated for consumptive use • Less water would be returned to the South Fork at El Dorado Powerhouse • Diverted water could be stored at Jenkinson Lake • Would be implemented on a shorter planning horizon

17 Speaker: Brian Mueller El Dorado Diversion Dam Schematic

18 Speaker: Brian Mueller White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir • Diversion facilities would need to be constructed at existing SMUD facilities • Raw water conveyance pipeline, a new water treatment plant, and a treated water conveyance pipeline would be needed • Would be implemented on a longer planning horizon, specific locations and characteristics of infrastructure are not currently known

19 Speaker: Brian Mueller White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir Schematic

20 Speaker: Brian Deason State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Process • SWRCB must approve the modification to Permit 21112 • SWRCB must find that the change will not result in injury to any legal water user or have unreasonable effects on fish or wildlife • SWRCB must also comply with CEQA

21 Speaker: Brian Deason

SWRCB Process • Process involves EID applying for a Change Petition to add additional points of diversion and re-diversion to the Permit 21112 water right permit • Project also requests a time extension to complete construction of all necessary facilities and demonstrate beneficial use of the 17,000 AF water right

22 Speaker: Brian Deason

Presentation Outline • CEQA overview • Project overview • Environmental review process • How to provide comments

23 Speaker: Brian Deason

Environmental Review Process • NOP . Public review April 17 thru May 18, 2020 • DEIR . Anticipated public review in fall 2020 • FEIR . Anticipated consideration by EID Board in spring 2021

24 Speaker: Brian Deason NOP and Probable Environmental Effects • Describes the Project • Evaluates potential effects on various environmental resources. For example: • Hydrology • Noise • Aesthetics

25 Speaker: Brian Deason NOP and Probable Environmental Effects • Project may have potentially significant effect on the environment • EIR required • Several resource areas carried forward for further analysis in EIR

26 Speaker: Brian Deason NOP and Probable Environmental Effects To be evaluated in the EIR  Aesthetics  Hazards and Hazardous  Agriculture and Forestry Material Resources  Hydrology and Water Quality  Air Quality  Land Use  Biological Resources (Aquatic  Noise and Vibration and Terrestrial)  Population and Housing  Cultural Resources and Tribal  Cultural Resources Public Services  Recreation  Energy   Geology and Soils Transportation  Green House Gases and Climate  Utilities and Service Systems Change  Wildfire

27 Speaker: Brian Deason

Environmental Impact Report • Describes and analyzes potentially significant environmental effects • Discusses ways to mitigate or avoid effects • Considers reasonable alternatives to the Project that avoid or substantially reduce potentially significant effects of the Project

28 Speaker: Brian Deason

Environmental Impact Report • Comments received during the public comment period will be considered during preparation of DEIR • DEIR public review anticipated fall 2020

29 Speaker: Brian Deason

Presentation Outline • CEQA overview • Project overview • Environmental process overview • How to provide comments

30 Speaker: Brian Deason How to Provide Comments • NOP public review period . April 17 thru May 18, 2020 • NOP available for review www.eid.org/CEQA

Please click link: Permit 21112 - NOP EIR and Public Scoping Meeting

31 Speaker: Brian Deason How to Provide Comments • Comments on the NOP . Due by 5:00 P.M., May 18, 2020 . Email comments to: [email protected] . Send comments to: El Dorado Irrigation District 2890 Mosquito Road Placerville, CA 95667 Attn: Brian Deason Environmental Resources Supervisor

32 Speaker: Brian Deason Public Comments, Questions and Answers • If you would like to make a comment or have a question, press star *5 on your telephone keypad and we will be alerted of your desire to speak • If you do not hear a prompt confirming that your "hand is raised“ try pressing *5 again • When it is your turn to speak, a recording will alert you that you have been unmuted and at that time, you can make your comments • Please remember to provide your name for the

record. 33 EXHIBIT E

EXEMPLARY COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOP

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 20 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 EXAMPLE of Form Letter Received

Dear Environmental Resources Supervisor Brian Deason,

I am writing to oppose the proposed modifications to EID’s Water Right Permit 21112 and to request a thorough analysis of its impacts to the South Fork American River. Changing the diversion point for 17,000 AF of water to upstream locations on this river will have severe consequences to downstream recreational and environmental resources across the watershed. Between Kyburz and Folsom Reservoir, there are over 50 miles of whitewater recreation opportunities for local, national and international paddlers who annually spend their money on El Dorado County businesses. Additionally, how the change of diversion impacts the environment is not clearly described in the proposal.

I would like to remind the current EID Board and staff that, two decades ago, El Dorado County Water Agency on behalf of EID formally committed to only diverting water from Folsom Reservoir under this water right. This was done to address the overwhelming recreational and environmental concerns voiced by many groups and individuals who blocked State of California approval due to the effects on the South Fork American River. That being said the Draft EIR for the new proposal must address some specific concerns.

The river and surrounding public lands provide outdoor recreation vital to public health and well-being. Thus, the Draft EIR for this proposal must identify all impacts of the new diversions on whitewater boating flow levels downstream of Kyburz, Slab Creek Dam and Chili Bar Dam. A change in flow levels would reduce the beneficial public use of paddling resources like the Kyburz and Golden Gate paddling runs that depend on instream levels appropriate to recreate. Upstream diversions would also severely impact scheduled recreational flows required by the hydropower licenses for both the Upper American River Project and the Chili Bar Project.

In addition to the impacts to recreation, how the change of diversion impacts the environment is not clearly described. The Draft EIR must make a serious effort to define the criteria by which EID would decide when, how, and in what quantities to use the added upstream diversions under Permit 21112. The public cannot make informed decisions about the consequential impacts without more information, data and modeling. For example, the Draft EIR must clearly address impacts of climate change and assess the ramifications of growth in the service area. Combined climate change and growth intensify the consequences for on water use, forest health and reduction in habitat with cascading impacts to threatened or endangered species.

Overall, it is my hope that the current EID Board and staff will honor the commitment to protect vital recreation and our environment on the South Fork American River by dropping the proposal to relocate their diversion.

May 15, 2020

El Dorado Irrigation District 2890 Mosquito Road Placerville, CA 95667 Attn: Brian Deason, Environmental Resources Supervisor [email protected] Via electronic mail

Re: Comments of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Sierra Club Mother Lode Chapter, Foothill Conservancy, American River Recreation Association, Planning and Conservation League, American Whitewater, California Outdoors, California Native Plant Society, Save the American River Association, Friends of the River, and Hilde Schweitzer on the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed modification of Water Right Permit 21112

Dr. Mr. Deason:

The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Sierra Club Mother Lode Chapter, Foothill Conservancy, American River Recreation Association, Planning and Conservation League, American Whitewater, California Outdoors, California Native Plant Society, Save the American River Association, Friends of the River, and Hilde Schweitzer respectfully submit these comments in response to the April 17, 2020 Notice of Preparation of an Environmental

Impact Report (EIR) for El Dorado Irrigation District’s (EID) proposed modification of Water Right Permit 21112.

I. Background (A deal is a deal.)

EID proposes to add points of diversion and rediversion to its existing Permit 21112 and to extend time to put water to beneficial use under the Permit from the current time limit in 2020 to 2040.

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) issued Permit 21112 in Water Rights Decision 1635 and amended the Permit in Water Right Order 2001-22. Permit 21112 allows EID to divert up to 17,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) from the South Fork American watershed. Under the Permit, EID stores water in three storage reservoirs high in the watershed: Lake Aloha, Caples Lake, and Silver Lake. At present, the sole point of direct diversion and rediversion in the South Fork American watershed downstream of these storage reservoirs is Folsom Reservoir. There is history behind this sole lower-watershed point of diversion and rediversion.

The South Fork of the American River is one of the premier and most used year-around whitewater recreation waterways in the entire United States. In addition to boaters from El Dorado County, it also draws rafters and kayakers from around the United States and also from many other nations. Such visitation provides a major source of income to El Dorado County businesses.

About three decades ago, the El Dorado County Water Agency, on behalf of EID, applied for a water right to divert 17,000 acre feet of water annually from several locations on the South Fork upstream of Chili Bar Dam. The reach of the South Fork American downstream of Chili Bar Dam is the most heavily used section of whitewater on the river. Thus, many groups and individuals protested and effectively blocked the State Water Board’s approval of that water right application.

In response, the Water Agency formally committed to diverting that water exclusively from Folsom Reservoir, which is downstream of the whitewater boating reaches. Based on that formal commitment, the protests were removed and the State Water Board granted the water right. Once granted, the Water Agency assigned the water right to EID, as had always been planned. This history is recounted in Decision 1635. We have attached to these comments the relevant excerpt of that decision for reference.

In the intervening years, new EID management and Board members have been seated. The previous commitment appears to be forgotten. EID has recently issued a Notice of Preparation for diverting that water from upstream of Chili Bar. Therefore, to start, the organizations who are on this letter believe it is important to remind current management and Board members of our opposition to adding upstream points of diversion and rediversion and of the commitment that EID made. It is up to the current EID management and Board to honor their predecessors’ commitment and not pursue the request to divert that water from above Chili Bar. A deal is a deal.

The Notice of Preparation describes proposed added points of diversion and/or rediversion upstream of Chili Bar Reservoir. These proposed additions substantially overlap the points of diversion and rediversion that the Water Agency considered and withdrew in 1993. They include:

• EID’s existing diversion dam at Kyburz (intake to the El Dorado Canal), currently used to divert water under a pre-existing pre-1914 water right • EID’s existing Hazel Creek Tunnel, including the turnout from the El Dorado Canal and any conveyance works that lead from the El Dorado Canal to the tunnel, and also that portion of Hazel Creek that connects the southern terminus of the tunnel with Jenkinson Reservoir; • Jenkinson Reservoir; • A to-be-constructed point of diversion and rediversion from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s (SMUD) Slab Creek Reservoir, Slab Creek Dam, White Rock penstock in the vicinity of Slab Creek Dam, or other point located in the vicinity of Slab Creek Reservoir; • A to-be-constructed point of diversion and rediversion from SMUD’s White Rock penstock at some other point further downstream of Slab Creek Reservoir, perhaps at an existing turnout works located immediately above While Rock Powerhouse.

As stated above, EID also proposes to extend the time to put water to use under the Permit to 2040.

II. Recommendations for analysis and disclosures

Should EID persist in pursuing the addition of points of diversion and rediversion to Permit 21112, the signatories to this letter plan to protest the District’s petition once it is noticed by the State Water Board. In that event, we make the following recommendations for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).

A. Operations and modeling

The DEIR must clearly describe future operations under the Proposed Project. It will be useful to describe operations with only existing infrastructure and operations with each incrementally added new module of infrastructure (diversion works, conveyance of diverted water, water treatment, delivery to end users, and wastewater).

While it is likely that some aspects of future operations would be opportunistic and case- specific, the DEIR must make a serious effort to define the criteria by which EID would decide when, how, and in what quantities to use the added points of diversion and rediversion under Permit 21112. To understand the impacts of the Proposed Project, decision makers and the public must know the times of year and the types of year during which EID would be likely to use the additional points of diversion and rediversion. To understand the impacts, it is also important to understand the range of volumes of water that EID might choose to exercise its rights under the Proposed Project.

The DEIR should disclose the range of water volumes that EID plans to convey through the Hazel Creek Tunnel, including the maximum planned volume that EID will convey through that facility and the timing of such conveyance.

The DEIR must describe not only the operations that attach directly to changes under Permit 21112, but must also describe how District water supply operations as a whole would change should the State Water Board grant the requested changes to Permit 21112. The DEIR must describe how EID would integrate a modified Permit 21112 with all other available sources of water, including the pre-1914 water right for 15,060 AFY that EID currently exercises at Kyburz, the newly active District contract with the Central Valley Project (CVP), also known as “Fazio water,” water rights that attach to Jenkinson Reservoir, and others.

The DEIR must model its current operations and the future operations of its water supply system under the Proposed Project. To model its own water operations, EID should use a publicly available, daily operations model for its simulations. A coarser (e.g., monthly) timestep for EID’s operations would be insufficient to analyze many impacts, such changes in the number of whitewater boating days in the Slab Creek reach of the South Fork American River with and without the Proposed Project.

EID constructed a daily operations model during the relicensing of Project 184 that includes project hydrology and operations up to year 2000, and that extends from EID’s four high altitude storage reservoirs down to the outfall of the El Dorado Powerhouse. EID could mine this existing model for hydrology and reproduce the operations embedded in it for use in a new model.

In addition, the resource agencies constructed a daily operations model on the publicly available HEC-ResSim platform for use in relicensing the Upper American River Project. The El Dorado Water Agency used this UARP model in evaluating a proposed diversion of water from the SMUD’s Upper American River Project. The UARP model allows input from independent model simulations to a node on the South Fork American River upstream of Slab Creek Reservoir. EID could use this model with updated hydrology to simulate the operation of the South Fork American River from Slab Creek Reservoir to Chili Bar Reservoir, providing input from its own operations model for upstream operations on the South Fork American River.

It will be harder to simulate the operations of Folsom Reservoir and the lower American River. To start, the DEIR should use the Sacramento Water Forum's subroutines for CALSIM 2 and CALSIM 3. The Sacramento Water Forum may have further recommendations on the best operations and temperature modeling tools that can provide inputs to allow evaluation of project impacts to the cold water pool in Folsom Reservoir and water temperatures in the lower American River.

EID should make public all modeling tools, modeling assumptions, model runs, and model output that it uses to analyze the Proposed Project and its impacts.

B. Facilities Design

The DEIR must analyze a range of design specifications for new facilities that the Proposed Project would support.

Since EID has not determined the size(s) of any new diversion works under the Proposed Project, the DEIR must evaluate a range of sizes of the proposed new turnouts from the South Fork American River and/or the White Rock Penstock. The size of turnout(s) will affect both the instream impacts of additional volumes of water diverted from the South Fork American River watershed and the growth-inducing and other developmental impacts of any new turnouts.

The DEIR must also evaluate a range of reasonably foreseeable options for down-system facilities such as water treatment plants and wastewater treatment plants, including size and location. These will affect patterns of growth, traffic, and similar.

C. Current and future water demand

The DEIR must disclose and analyze actual and updated estimates of future demand in the eastern portion of EID’s service area that would be served by the requested new points of diversion and rediversion. This analysis needs to address:

• Actual per capita water use in the past ten and five years • The water savings from lining portions of the El Dorado Canal • Impacts of Measure E on future growth • Demand reduction as mandated by Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606, which set a standard for indoor residential water consumption at 55 gallons per person per day • Actual water availability in the recent drought when EID sold water outside its service area.

D. Water transfers

The DEIR must describe planned or reasonably foreseeable future water transfers under the Proposed Project and whether, how and to what degree the requested changes in permit conditions will assist and incentivize transfers of water (such as the proposed transfer in 2020 of 8000 AF from three of EID’s storage reservoirs to state and/or federal water contractors south of the Delta). If increased water transfer frequency and/or volumes is part of the business plan for the modified Permit 21112, the DEIR must disclose the impacts locally (e.g., greater risk of shortages with reduced carryover storage) and the cumulative impacts downstream.

E. Increased likelihood of full use of allocated water

The DEIR must disclose whether and how the Proposed Project will increase the likelihood of the full use of water allocated under the Permit.

F. Project alternatives

The DEIR should analyze an alternative that includes an extension of time to put water to beneficial use but no added points of diversion or rediversion. The DEIR should also note the degree to which such an alternative would reduce known issues of controversy with the Proposed Project.

The No Project Alternative should fairly evaluate what would happen should the request for time extension not be granted, particularly in consideration of EID’s new CVP contract and EID’s sale of water even in dry years and drought periods.

G. Climate change

The DEIR must disclose the operation of EID’s water supply system with the Proposed Project under conditions of climate change and the impacts of the Proposed Project under climate change.

H. Sacramento Water Forum

The DEIR must describe as part of the regulatory setting how the Proposed Project will affect the upcoming negotiations to update to the agreements of the Sacramento Water Forum.

I. Impacts of the Proposed Project

The DEIR must disclose the impacts of the Proposed Project and evaluate mitigations of those impacts. Among the impacts the DEIR must disclose and analyze are:

• Impacts to Folsom Reservoir, its water temperature and cold water pool due to reduced inflow or changes in the timing of inflow • Impacts to Folsom Reservoir storage in terms of the frequency in which Folsom Reservoir would be at dead pool and unable to provide water for consumptive or downstream instream uses (the DEIR should evaluate the impacts separately in reference to added points of diversion and in reference to the time extension not being granted, as well as in reference to the complete Project as proposed) • Impacts to the lower American River, particularly those due to the thermal impacts of reduced inflow to Folsom Reservoir or changes in the timing of inflow • Cumulative impacts on the Sacramento River and the Sacramento - San Joaquin Bay Delta • Growth-inducing impacts • Indirect impacts due to growth-inducing impacts, including o Impacts to oak woodlands o Impacts to gabbro soils in the area north of Highway 50 generally between Cameron Park and Shingle Springs o Impacts to threatened and endangered plants and other rare plants o Impacts to traffic, noise, greenhouse gas production, and similar

o Changes in the geographic locations of new growth in the EID service area • Impacts to lake levels at Silver Lake and Caples Lake generally • Impacts to lake levels at Caples Lake due to discretionary drawdown of Caples Lake, particularly in fall and winter • Cumulative impacts of increased water diversions under the Proposed Project when combined with other existing, planned or reasonably foreseeable water development projects, including the pending application of the El Dorado County Water Agency for up to 40,000 AFY water stored in the Upper American River Project • Cumulative impacts of increased water diversions under the Proposed Project when combined with EID’s recently acquired but not yet fully exercised water supply contract with the Central Valley Project for water to be diverted from Folsom Reservoir • Impacts to water temperature and aquatic resources in the South Fork American River • Impacts to both the riparian habitat and overall forest health in the South Fork American River canyon due to changes in river flow volume and timing. • Impacts of increased wildfire due to reduced riparian and forest health in the South Fork American River canyon. • Impacts to whitewater boating: o In the South Fork American River downstream of Kyburz . Kyburz to Riverton section . Riverton to Peavine section . Golden Gate section o In the South Fork American River downstream of Slab Creek Dam . Slab Creek Dam to Mosquito Bridge section . Mosquito Bridge to Rock Creek section . Rock Creek Chili Bar section o In the South Fork American River downstream of Chili Bar Dam . Chili Bar to Coloma section . Coloma to Lotus section . Lotus to Salmon Falls section • Impacts to all recreation activities in the South Fork American River watershed, including those at and around Caples and Silver Lake • Impacts to Hazel Creek downstream of the outfall of the Hazel Creek Tunnel • Impacts on all uses in the reach of the South Fork American River between the proposed Kyburz point of diversion and the El Dorado Powerhouse at those times when the Powerhouse is not operating.

III. Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for proposed modifications to water right Permit 21112. We strongly recommend that EID reconsider the proposed addition in its Proposed Project of points of diversion and rediversion upstream of Folsom Reservoir.

Respectfully submitted,

______Chris Shutes Ronald Stork FERC Projects Director Senior Policy Advocate Water Rights Advocate Friends of the River California Sportfishing Protection Alliance 1418 20th Street, Suite 100 1608 Francisco St., Berkeley, CA 94703 Sacramento, CA 95811-5206 (510) 421-2405 (916) 442-3155 x 220 [email protected] [email protected]

______Jonas Minton Stephen Green Senior Water Policy Advisor President Planning and Conservation League Save the American River Association 1107 Ninth Street, Suite 901 8836 Greenback Lane, Suite C Sacramento, CA 95814 Orangevale, CA 95662 [email protected] [email protected]

______Nathan Rangel Theresa Simsiman President, California Outdoors American Whitewater P.O. Box 401, Coloma, CA 95613 California Stewardship Director [email protected] 12155 Tributary Point Drive #48 Gold River, CA 95670 (916) 835-1460 [email protected] ______Sean Wirth Conservation Committee Chair Sierra Club - Mother Lode Chapter ______909 12th St #202 Susan Britting, Ph.D. Sacramento, CA 95814 Conservation Chair, El Dorado Chapter [email protected] California Native Plant Society

PO Box 377

Coloma, CA 95613

(530) 295-8210 [email protected]

______Hilde Schweitzer Sherry Pease Private Boater Executive Director P.O. Box 852 Foothill Conservancy Lotus, CA 95651 35 Court Street #1 Phone: (530) 622-2932 Jackson, CA 95642 Email: [email protected] (209) 223-3508

[email protected]

______Howard Penn President American River Recreation Association PO Box 157 Coloma, CA 95613 (530) 626-7373 [email protected]

Attachment: From Water Rights Decision 1635, pages 106-107

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2D33DE96-048D-4BA5-BBE6-AEB66121130D

Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director North Central Region 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-4599 916-358-2900 www.wildlife.ca.gov

May 22, 2020

Brian Deason Environmental Resources Supervisor El Dorado Irrigation District 2890 Mosquito Road Placerville, CA 95667

Subject: MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 PROJECT NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH# 2020049042

Dear Mr. Deason:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received and reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the El Dorado Irrigation District (District) for the Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project (Project) in El Dorado County pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statute and guidelines.1

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that may fall under CDFW’s regulatory authority.

CDFW ROLE

CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code §§711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code §21070; CEQA Guidelines §15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Fish & G. Code §1802.). As a Trustee Agency, CDFW provides biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW may also act as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub. Resources Code §21069; CEQA Guidelines §15381) if the Project requires any discretionary actions from

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000. DocuSign Envelope ID: 2D33DE96-048D-4BA5-BBE6-AEB66121130D

Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project May 22, 2020 Page 2 of 12

CDFW, such as the execution of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (Fish & G. Code §1600 et seq.) and/or a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species (Fish & G. Code §2050 et seq.). CDFW also administers the Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and G. Code §1900 et seq.), Natural Community Conservation Program (Fish and G. Code §2800 et seq., and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to California’s fish and wildlife resources.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY

The Project location encompasses areas within and near the South Fork American River from Kyburz, California to Folsom Reservoir, including Jenkinson Lake, in El Dorado County, California.

The District seeks to modify its existing Water Right Permit 2112 to add authorized points of diversion and re-diversion to more effectively and efficiently meet the future water demands within El Dorado County. The additional points of diversion are proposed at the District's existing El Dorado Diversion Dam near Kyburz and at the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)'s Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir or at SMUD's White Rock Powerhouse Penstock north of Placerville near Chili Bar. In addition, the District proposes to add a point of re-diversion from the El Dorado Diversion Dam at Jenkinson Lake to allow for storage of Permit 21112 water in Jenkinson Lake.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (i.e., biological resources). CDFW offers the comments and recommendations presented below to assist the District in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts on biological resources. CDFW recommends that the forthcoming EIR address the following:

Project-Specific Issues

The Notice of Preparation for the Project includes adding several points of re-diversion to the District’s existing water rights. CDFW has concerns over the potential direct and cumulative adverse impacts from changes in the quantity, timing, and duration of streamflow releases on the sensitive anadromous and/or resident fisheries within the Lower American River (LAR) and South Fork American River (SFAR). CDFW recommends that in the DEIR:

1. The District prepare operations, flow, and temperature modeling to address how adding points of re-diversion to the District’s existing water right permit 21112 may change the amount and timing of water releases within the basin. Moving points of diversion upstream from the existing singular point of diversion at Folsom Reservoir could impact water deliveries, power generation, local DocuSign Envelope ID: 2D33DE96-048D-4BA5-BBE6-AEB66121130D

Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project May 22, 2020 Page 3 of 12

streamflow and water temperature in the SFAR, and water management downstream of Folsom in the LAR via changes to the cold-water pool.

2. The analysis of impacts to water users and beneficial uses should be based on site-specific multi-year hydrologic, daily water balance modeling, and biological information. The DEIR should disclose anticipated changes to operations by using an operations model or other spreadsheet-type analysis to analyze a full spectrum of potential future condition scenarios.

3. The operations modeling should be used to demonstrate how amount and timing of inflow to SMUD and Pacific Gas and Electric’s downstream hydroelectric projects may be impacted by the changes to points of diversion. The DEIR should disclose if and how the changes to points of diversion could incumber those operators from being able to meet agreed-upon instream flow, temperature management, pulse and recreation flows, and ramping rate terms of their Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses (P-184, P-2155).

4. Application of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology should be used to determine an appropriate minimum streamflow regime if flow reductions are contemplated.

5. If it is determined that aquatic organisms would be significantly affected by Project-induced flow fluctuations or decreases in streamflow, then appropriate avoidance, minimization and/or compensation should be analyzed.

6. If it is the District’s intent to use the new infrastructure and permit modifications described in this Project to facilitate future long-term water transfers, the expected changes to operations should be disclosed in DEIR scenarios that show daily changes to stream flows in the SFAR and LAR.

7. The District should disclose how adding points of diversion to water right permit 21112 upstream of Folsom Reservoir is consistent with the 1996 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Decision 1635 authorizing consumptive use of up to 17,000 acre feet of water annually, made available from the SFAR watershed at Folsom Lake, and subsequent SWRCB Orders and Settlement Agreements on Decision 1635 (available here: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/hearings/am erican_river_southfork/).

CDFW is also concerned that the Kyburz diversion does not have a functional fish screen or fish ladder. CDFW and the District communicated regarding proposed modifications to the Kyburz fish ladder in 2015. Subsequent communications with FERC in 2017 indicated that the District’s Board of Directors had not approved funding for the agreed-upon renovations. The DEIR should disclose how and when the Kyburz diversion fish screen and fish ladder facilities have been, or will be, brought into compliance with CDFW guidance and all applicable State and Federal conditions for facilities at this location. CDFW’s fish screen criteria are included in Appendix S of DocuSign Envelope ID: 2D33DE96-048D-4BA5-BBE6-AEB66121130D

Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project May 22, 2020 Page 4 of 12

Volume One of the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual, which can be found at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=22610&inline.

Assessment of Biological Resources

Section 15125(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that knowledge of the regional setting of a project is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to the region. To enable CDFW staff to adequately review and comment on the Project, the EIR should include a complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the Project footprint, with emphasis on identifying rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species and their associated habitats. CDFW recommends that the DEIR specifically include:

1. An assessment of all habitat types located within the Project footprint, and a map that identifies the location of each habitat type. CDFW recommends that floristic, alliance- and/or association-based mapping and assessment be completed following The Manual of California Vegetation, second edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Adjoining habitat areas should also be included in this assessment where site activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts offsite. Habitat mapping at the alliance level will help establish baseline vegetation conditions.

2. A general biological inventory of wildlife species that are present or have the potential to be present on-site and within adjacent areas that could be affected by the Project. CDFW recommends that the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), as well as previous studies performed in the area, be consulted to assess the potential presence of sensitive species and habitats. A nine United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle search is recommended to determine what may occur in the region, larger if the Project area extends past one quad (see Data Use Guidelines at www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps- and-Data). Please review the webpage for information on how to access the CNDDB to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat, including Significant Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code, in the vicinity of the Project.

Please note that CDFW’s CNDDB is not exhaustive in terms of the data it houses, nor is it an absence database. Records in the CNDDB exist only where species have been detected and reported. This means there is a bias in the database towards locations that have had more development pressures, and thus more survey work. A lack of records in a certain area does not mean that no special-status species exist in that area, just that no observations have been submitted to the CNDDB in that area. CDFW recommends using the CNDDB QuickView tool to generate a list of special-status species that have been observed in all of the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles in which Project activities will take place, as well as all of the quadrangles adjacent to the quadrangles in which Project activities will take DocuSign Envelope ID: 2D33DE96-048D-4BA5-BBE6-AEB66121130D

Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project May 22, 2020 Page 5 of 12

place as a starting point in determining what species may be present in the area (see Data Use Guidelines at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and- Data).

3. A complete inventory of rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species with the potential to occur within the Project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected, including California Species of Special Concern and California Fully Protected Species (Fish & G. Code §3511) and any other species meeting the CEQA definition of endangered or rare (CEQA Guidelines §15380). The inventory should address seasonal variations in use of the Project area and should not be limited to resident species. CDFW recommends that the DEIR include the results of recently conducted focused species-specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable. Species-specific surveys should be conducted in order to ascertain the presence of species with the potential to be impacted by Project activities. Survey and monitoring protocols and guidelines are available at: www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols. Please note that negative survey results do not guarantee that the species in question will not be impacted by future project activities, as species that are absent from a site at one time may move into the area in the future. Some aspects of the Project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, in phases, or if surveys are completed during periods of unusual environmental conditions such as drought.

4. A thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special-status plants and natural communities within and adjacent to the Project footprint, following CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (see www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants).

5. Any other information on the regional setting that is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts, with special emphasis on resources that are rare or unique to the region (CEQA Guidelines § 15125[c]).

Analysis of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources

The DEIR should provide a thorough discussion of the Project’s potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on biological resources. The threshold of significance for each impact should be defined and the criteria used to determine whether the impacts are significant should be discussed (CEQA Guidelines §15064, subd. (f)). To ensure that Project impacts on biological resources are fully analyzed, the following information should be included in the DEIR:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2D33DE96-048D-4BA5-BBE6-AEB66121130D

Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project May 22, 2020 Page 6 of 12

1. A discussion of potential direct impacts such as removal or degradation of habitat; injury to or killing of individual plants and animals; obstruction of wildlife corridors and migration routes; habitat fragmentation; etc.

2. A discussion of potential indirect impacts such as disruption of wildlife behaviors by lighting, noise, vibrations, and/or human activity; increased wildlife-human interactions; increased potential for vehicle strikes; obstruction of wildlife movement across the broader landscape; etc. The DEIR should also discuss potential Project impacts on adjacent natural habitats.

3. A cumulative effects analysis developed as described under CEQA Guidelines section 15130. The DEIR should discuss the Project's cumulative impacts to natural resources and determine if that contribution would result in a significant impact. The DEIR should include a list of present, past, and probable future projects producing related impacts to biological resources or shall include a summary of the projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, that consider conditions contributing to a cumulative effect. The cumulative analysis should include analysis of vegetation and habitat reductions within the area and their potential cumulative effects. Please include all potential direct and indirect Project-related impacts to riparian areas, wetlands, wildlife corridors or wildlife movement areas, aquatic habitats, sensitive species and/or special-status species, open space, and adjacent natural habitats in the cumulative effects analysis.

Mitigation Measures for Project Impacts to Biological Resources

The DEIR should include appropriate and adequate avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures for all potentially significant impacts that are expected to occur as a result of the construction and long-term operation and maintenance of the Project. For individual projects, mitigation must be roughly proportional to the level of impacts, including cumulative impacts, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA (Guidelines §§15126.4(a)(4)(B), 15064, 15065, and 16355). In order for mitigation measures to be effective, they must be specific, enforceable, and feasible actions that will improve environmental conditions. When proposing measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts, CDFW recommends consideration of the following:

1. Fully Protected Species: Several Fully Protected Species (Fish & G. Code § 3511) have the potential to occur within or adjacent to the Project area, including, but not limited to: golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus). Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time. Project activities described in the DEIR should be designed to completely avoid any fully protected species that have the potential to be present within or adjacent to the Project area. CDFW also recommends that the DEIR fully analyze potential adverse impacts to fully protected species due to habitat DocuSign Envelope ID: 2D33DE96-048D-4BA5-BBE6-AEB66121130D

Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project May 22, 2020 Page 7 of 12

modification, loss of foraging habitat, and/or interruption of migratory and breeding behaviors. The analysis should include a discussion of how the proposed mitigation measures will reduce impacts to fully protected species.

2. Sensitive Plant Communities: CDFW considers sensitive plant communities to be imperiled habitats having both local and regional significance. Plant communities, alliances, and associations with a statewide ranking of S-1, S-2, S-3, and S-4 should be considered sensitive and declining at the local and regional level. These ranks can be obtained by querying the CNDDB and are included in The Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). The DEIR should include measures to fully avoid and otherwise protect sensitive plant communities from Project-related direct and indirect impacts.

3. Habitat Restoration: CDFW generally recommends habitat restoration, enhancement, and conservation as mitigation for significant impacts on sensitive species and/or their habitat. If possible, habitat restoration should be located onsite or near enough to the impact area that impacted wildlife populations can benefit from it. However, if on-site mitigation is not feasible or would not be biologically viable, then off-site mitigation should be proposed through habitat creation and/or acquisition and preservation in perpetuity.

If habitat restoration is proposed, the DEIR should include measures to perpetually protect the targeted habitat values within mitigation areas from long- term future impacts such as development. CDFW recommends that habitat mitigation areas be protected legally via conservation easement when possible, as the protection afforded by other methods of legal preservation such as deed restrictions is not as strong. Specific issues that should be addressed include restrictions on access, proposed land dedications, long-term monitoring and management programs, control of illegal dumping, water pollution, increased human intrusion, etc.

4. Habitat Revegetation/Restoration Plans: Plans for restoration and revegetation, if proposed, should be prepared by persons with expertise in the regional ecosystems and native plant restoration techniques. Plans should identify the assumptions used to develop the proposed restoration strategy. Onsite vegetation mapping at the alliance and/or association level should be used to develop appropriate restoration goals and local plant palettes. Reference areas should be identified to help guide restoration efforts. Each plan should include, at a minimum: (a) the location of restoration sites and assessment of appropriate reference sites; (b) the plant species to be used, sources of local propagules, container sizes, and seeding rates; (c) a schematic depicting the mitigation area; (d) a local seed and cuttings and planting schedule; (e) a description of the irrigation methodology; (f) measures to control exotic vegetation on site; (g) specific success criteria; (h) a detailed monitoring program; (i) contingency measures should the success criteria not be met; and (j) identification of the party responsible for meeting the success criteria and providing for conservation of the DocuSign Envelope ID: 2D33DE96-048D-4BA5-BBE6-AEB66121130D

Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project May 22, 2020 Page 8 of 12

mitigation site in perpetuity. Monitoring of restoration areas should extend across a sufficient time frame to ensure that the new habitat is established, self- sustaining, and capable of surviving drought.

CDFW recommends that local onsite propagules from the Project area and nearby vicinity be collected and used for restoration purposes. Onsite seed collection should be initiated as early as possible in order to accumulate sufficient propagule material for subsequent use in future years. Restoration objectives should include protecting special habitat elements or re-creating them in areas affected by the Project. Examples may include retention of woody material, logs, snags, rocks, and brush piles.

5. Nesting Birds: Nesting and migratory birds are protected by Fish & G. Code §§3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Fish & G. Code §3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by the Fish & G. Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish & G. Code §3503.5 states that is it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by the Fish & G. Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish & G. Code §3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

CDFW recommends that the DEIR include specific avoidance and minimization measures to ensure that impacts to nesting birds do not occur. Project-specific avoidance and minimization measures may include, but not be limited to: Project phasing and timing, monitoring of Project-related noise (where applicable), sound walls, and buffers, where appropriate. The DEIR should also include specific avoidance and minimization measures that will be implemented should a nest be located within the Project site. If pre-construction surveys are proposed in the DEIR, CDFW recommends that they be required no more than three (3) days prior to vegetation clearing or ground disturbance activities, as instances of nesting could be missed if surveys are conducted earlier.

6. Moving out of Harm’s Way: The future construction of new water diversion infrastructure associated with the Project is anticipated to result in the clearing of natural habitats that support native species. To avoid direct mortality, CDFW recommends the District condition the DEIR to require that a qualified biologist with the proper permits be retained to be onsite prior to and during all ground- and habitat-disturbing activities. The qualified biologist with the proper permits may move out of harm’s way special-status species or other wildlife of low or limited mobility that would otherwise be injured or killed from Project-related activities. Movement of wildlife out of harm’s way should be limited to only those individuals that would otherwise be injured or killed, and individuals should be moved only as far as necessary to ensure their safety. Please note that CDFW does not consider the temporary relocation of on-site wildlife to be effective DocuSign Envelope ID: 2D33DE96-048D-4BA5-BBE6-AEB66121130D

Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project May 22, 2020 Page 9 of 12

mitigation for habitat loss.

7. Translocation of Species: CDFW generally does not support the use of relocation, salvage, and/or transplantation as the sole mitigation for impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species as these efforts are generally experimental in nature and largely unsuccessful.

California Endangered Species Act

CESA (Fish & G. Code §2050 et seq.) prohibits the import, export, sale, and take (Fish & G. Code §86) of state-listed endangered (Fish & G. Code §2062), threatened (Fish & G. Code §2067), and candidate (Fish & G. Code §2068) species without proper authorization. If Project activities have the potential to cause incidental take of state- listed species, a CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) may be obtained to provide coverage in the event that take occurs. A CESA ITP may also be obtained to provide coverage for rare and endangered plants listed under the Native Plant Protection Act (Fish & G. Code §1900 et seq.).

To issue an ITP, CDFW must demonstrate that the impacts of the authorized take will be minimized and fully mitigated (Fish & G. Code §2081 (b)). CDFW encourages early consultation with staff to determine appropriate measures to offset Project impacts, facilitate future permitting processes and to engage with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to coordinate specific measures if both State and federally listed species may be present within the Project vicinity.

Native Plant Protection Act

The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (Fish & G. Code §1900 et seq.) prohibits the take or possession of state-listed rare and endangered plants, including any part or product thereof, unless authorized by CDFW or in certain limited circumstances. Take of state-listed rare and/or endangered plants due to Project activities may only be permitted through an ITP or other authorization issued by CDFW pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 786.9 subdivision (b).

Lake and Streambed Alteration Program

Fish & G. Code §1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may do one or more of the following: substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake; substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake. Please note that "any river, stream or lake" includes those that are episodic (i.e., those that are dry for periods of time) as well as those that are perennial (i.e., those that flow year-round). This includes ephemeral streams and watercourses with a subsurface flow. It may also apply to work undertaken within the flood plain of a body of water. CDFW anticipates that the Project DocuSign Envelope ID: 2D33DE96-048D-4BA5-BBE6-AEB66121130D

Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project May 22, 2020 Page 10 of 12

will require notification pursuant to Fish & G. Code §1602 for the diversion of water as well as for any construction and operations and maintenance activities that may alter a river, stream, or lake as described above.

Upon receipt of a complete notification, CDFW determines if the Project activities may substantially adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources and whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. An LSA Agreement includes measures necessary to protect existing fish and wildlife resources. CDFW may suggest ways to modify the Project that would eliminate or reduce adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW’s issuance of an LSA Agreement is a “project” subject to CEQA (see Pub. Resources Code 21065). To facilitate issuance of an LSA Agreement, if one is necessary, the DEIR should identify all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, lakes, other hydrologically connected aquatic features, and any associated biological resources/habitats present within the entire Project footprint (including access and staging areas). The DEIR should analyze all potential temporary, permanent, direct, indirect and/or cumulative impacts to the above-mentioned features and associated biological resources/habitats that may occur because of the Project. If it is determined that the Project will result in significant impacts to these resources the DEIR should propose appropriate avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. To obtain a LSA Notification package, please go to https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA/Forms.

Please note that the fish and wildlife resources that may be impacted by activities subject to Notification under Fish and Game Code §1602 are not synonymous with Waters of the United States as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), and a wetland delineation prepared for the USACOE may not include all needed information for CDFW to determine the extent of the impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Therefore, CDFW does not recommend relying solely on methods developed specifically for delineating areas subject to other agencies’ jurisdiction when mapping lakes, streams, wetlands, floodplains, riparian areas, etc. in preparation for submitting a Notification of a LSA.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA

It is the policy of the state that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database, which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be submitted online or mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: [email protected]. DocuSign Envelope ID: 2D33DE96-048D-4BA5-BBE6-AEB66121130D

Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project May 22, 2020 Page 11 of 12

FILING FEES

The Project, as proposed, would have an effect on fish and wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, §753.5; Fish & G. Code §711.4; Pub. Resources Code, §21089).

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21092 and 21092.2, CDFW requests written notification of proposed actions and pending decisions regarding the Project. Written notifications may be directed to: California Department of Fish and Wildlife North Central Region, 1701 Nimbus Road, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670.

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation of the EIR for the Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project and recommends that the District address CDFW’s comments and concerns in the forthcoming EIR. CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to minimize impacts.

If you have any questions regarding the comments provided in this letter or wish to schedule a meeting and/or site visit, please contact Gabriele Quillman, Environmental Scientist, at (916) 358-2955 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Jeff Drongesen Environmental Program Manager

ec: Kelley Barker, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) Briana Seapy, Water Program Supervisor Gabriele Quillman, Environmental Scientist Elizabeth Lawson, Senior Hydraulic Engineer Department of Fish and Wildlife

Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento

DocuSign Envelope ID: 2D33DE96-048D-4BA5-BBE6-AEB66121130D

Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project May 22, 2020 Page 12 of 12

Literature Cited

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento, California. http://vegetation.cnps.org/.

El Dorado County Water Agency

Dane Wadle. Shiva Frentzen Lori Parlin Kelly Sheehan Brian K. Veerkamp Kenneth V. Payne, P.E. Georgetown Divide PUD Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors South Tahoe P.U.D. Board of Supervisors General Manager

El Dorado Irrigation District 2890 Mosquito Road Placerville, CA 95667 Attn: Brian Deason, Environmental Resources Supervisor Transmitted via e-mail to: [email protected]

Subject: Water Right Permit 21112 Project

Dear Mr. Deason,

The El Dorado County Water Agency (Agency) appreciates the opportunity to respond to El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) for its Notice of Preparation for the Environmental Impact Report for the Modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Project (Project). The Agency provides these comments based on the information provided on EID’s website, titled “April 30, 2020 PowerPoint Presentation with Agenda” for the Project:

The Agency recognizes that EID holds Water Right Permit 21112 (Permit 21112), which was issued in 2001 by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Permit 21112 allows the EID to divert from the South Fork of the American River (South Fork) at Folsom Reservoir; to store water in upstream reservoirs at Caples, Silver, and Aloha Lakes; and to re-divert the water released from these upstream reservoirs at Folsom Reservoir for consumptive uses for up to a total quantity of 17,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water at Folsom Reservoir (by a combination of direct diversion and re-diversion of stored water).

Based on the information provided, EID is seeking to modify Permit 21112 to allow diversions upstream of Folsom Reservoir, from higher elevations to deliver water supplies to customers at lower elevations in the EID service area. The Agency recognizes the benefits to deliver water, generally, by gravity to reduce pumping and the associated reduction of energy consumption and costs while also providing flexibility to divert from the American River.

4330 Golden Center Drive, Suite C Placerville, CA 95667 Office: (530) 621-5392 Fax: (530) 672-6721 [email protected] https://www.edcgov.us/Water/

Letter to Mr. Deason May 18, 2020 Comments to the NOP for theWater Right Permit 21112 Project Page 2

The proposed Permit 21112 modification seeks to: 1. Maintain diversions at Folsom Reservoir 2. Allow upstream diversions at El Dorado Diversion Dam 3. Allow upstream diversions at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir; and 4. Extend Permit 21112 to December 31, 2040.

The proposed diversions at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock or Slab Creek Dam/Reservoir are within the Upper American River Project (UARP), which is part of the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District’s (SMUD) hydropower system tahat includes reservoirs, powerhouses and transmission lines primarily located in the El Dorado National Forest.

More than 50 years ago, SMUD entered into an agreement that would allow entities within El Dorado County to access up to 40,000 acre feet of water per year stored in UARP reservoirs needed to support our economy, environment and quality of life, and to store and divert within the UARP for deliveries of this water. The El Dorado-SMUD Cooperation Agreement (Agreement) was signed in 2005 by the County of El Dorado, Georgetown Divide Public Utility District the Agency, EID (collectively referred as the “El Dorado Parties”) and SMUD. In this Agreement, there are a few points, amongst others, that must be considered by EID and other entities that may be involved in the development of EID’s proposed modification to Permit 21112:

a. The Agreement addresses the interconnection at White Rock regarding deliveries, negotiations and construction agreement, delivery scheduling and other associated constraints. b. The Agency is still seeking to implement the Agreement under the El Dorado Water Reliability Project (EDWRP). The EDWRP would allow the County to finally realize the benefits of the water storage agreements with SMUD. The EDWRP seeks to utilize existing reservoirs, significantly minimizing environmental impacts and saving millions of dollars compared to constructing new storage. c. The Agency serves as the El Dorado Designated Representative (EDDR) for the El Dorado Parties as defined under the Agreement where the EDDR is the “sole and exclusive Party that may and is responsible for the exercise the obligations described in this Section 19.1…. 1. The proposed modification to Permit 21112 may have an impact on implementation of the provisions provided in the Agreement. The Letter to Mr. Deason May 18, 2020 Comments to the NOP for theWater Right Permit 21112 Project Page 3

Agency, as the EDDR, requests EID engage the Agency in its impact analyses and in any negotiations with SMUD that could impact the implementation of the Agreement including the diversion at White Rock or upstream diversion that could impact the Carryover Storage recognized in the Agreement.

Please contact me if you have questions or need clarification regarding these comments.

Sincerely, El Dorado County Water Agency

Kenneth V. Payne General Manager

From: Stephen Green To: DL_P21112 Subject: Attn. Brian Deason Date: Thursday, May 14, 2020 11:37:47 AM

SAVE THE AMERICAN RIVER ASSOCIATION

8836 GREENBACK LANE

ORANGEVALE, CA 95662

916-936-4555

May 14, 2020

El Dorado Irrigation District

2890 Road

Placerville, CA 95667

Attn: Mr. Brian Deason, Environmental Resources Supervisor

Re: Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed modification of Water Right Permit 21112

Dear Mr. Deason:

The Save the American River Association (SARA) provided joint comments on the NOP with a number of organizations. We also offer the following additional comments.

(1) When is a Deal a Deal?

The El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) applied for a water right permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to divert 17,000 AF from high in the watershed of the South Fork of the American River. There were protests objecting to adverse impacts on the downstream river and primarily on whitewater recreational use, fisheries, and esthetics.

EID resolved the protests by agreeing to divert this 17,000 AF from Folsom Reservoir, which is below the river sections of concern to the protestants. After these protests were resolved, the State Water Board issued Permit 21112. As described in the current NOP, EID now proposes to go back to its original proposal to divert this water from high in the watershed, which, if the point-of- diversion change is granted, would undo EID’s agreement with the protestants.

EID should explain why this “undoing the deal” is appropriate for the district.

Eid should explain the appropriateness of establishing a precedent in California water that a deal is a deal until one party unilaterally undoes the deal.

SARA prefers that EID withdraw this proposed change and will continue to divert from Folsom Reservoir in order meet its agreement with the protestants.

(2) At the public hearing on the NOP, EID was asked what would happen to this water. The district’ representative said that this water would be diverted high in the watershed for consumptive uses and would no longer flow down the South Fork and would no longer flow into Folsom Reservoir.

EID’s EIR should explain the impacts on recreation, fisheries, and esthetics to the South Fork because of the diversion of 17,000 AF high in the watershed.

The EIR should describe the alternatives to mitigate these impacts and EID should carry out the mitigation.

(3) As stated above, the 17,000 AF will no longer flow into Folsom Reservoir.

The EIR should describe the effects on Folsom Reservoir’s cold water pool and on the temperature of water released from Folsom and Nimbus Dams across the various water year types.

The EIR should describe the impacts on steelhead (a listed species), salmon, and other fisheries in the lower American River.

The EIR should describe the alternatives to mitigate these impacts and EID should carry out the mitigation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Stephen Green, President

CC: State Water Resources Control Board

State Water Resources Control Board

MAY 18 2020

Brian Deason Environmental Resources Supervisor El Dorado Irrigation District [email protected]

Dear Mr. Deason:

COMMENTS ON NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT’S WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112 PROJECT

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for El Dorado Irrigation District’s (District) Water Right Permit 21112 Project. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Division of Water Rights (Division) reviewed the NOP focused on the proposed project, which will require water right and potentially water quality approvals from the State Water Board. The Water Right Permit 21112 Project as described by the NOP covers the District’s eventual filing of petitions for both time extension and change of water right Permit 21112 (Application 5645B). With the petition for extension of time the District is proposing to request an extension through December 31, 2040 to both fully construct and develop maximum beneficial use under Permit 21112. With the petition for change, the District is proposing to add new points of diversion and rediversion to Permit 21112.

Petition for Extension of Time

Water Code section 1396 requires a right holder to prosecute project construction and beneficial use of water with due diligence, in accordance with the Water Code, the State Water Board's regulations, and the terms specified in the permit. The State Water Board may approve a request for an extension of time if the Board finds that there is good cause for the extension. (Wat. Code, § 1398, subd. (a).) The State Water Board's regulations allow an extension of time to be granted only on such conditions as the Board determines to be in the public interest, and on a showing to the Board's satisfaction that (1) due diligence has been exercised, (2) failure to comply with previous time requirements has been occasioned by obstacles which could not reasonably be avoided, and (3) satisfactory progress will be made if an extension of time is granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 23, § 844.)

Brian Deason - 2 - MAY 18 2020 El Dorado Irrigation District

Approval of the District’s requested extension of time will result in an incremental increase in the amount of water diverted and consumptively used under Permit 21112. That incremental increase is equal to the full quantity of water allowed to be put to beneficial use under the permit less the amount previously put to beneficial use in compliance with all permit conditions. Consequently, the DEIR must address the increase in consumptive use of water under Permit 21112 that will occur if the development period is extended. The DEIR must evaluate all stream reaches that will potentially experience an incremental decrease in flow if additional water is diverted under Permit 21112, including the potential environmental impacts downstream of Folsom Reservoir extending to the Sacramento- San Joaquin Bay Delta. Any evaluation of downstream impacts from the increased diversions will need to consider all current and proposed regulatory requirements for stream systems potentially affected, including the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta Estuary (and proposed updates).

Petition for Change – Points of Diversion and Rediversion

In order for the State Water Board to approve a water right change petition, the petitioner must 1) establish that the proposed change(s) will not in effect initiate a new right; 2) provide sufficient information to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the proposed change(s) will not injure any other legal user of the water; 3) provide information concerning the extent to which fish and wildlife will be affected by the change(s); and 4) identify proposed measures to protect fish and wildlife from any unreasonable impacts of the change(s). The petitioner also must demonstrate that the proposed change(s) will comply with any applicable requirements of the Fish and Game Code, including the California Endangered Species Act, and the federal Endangered Species Act.

The NOP described stream reaches that will be evaluated in the DEIR relative to potential impacts from operation of the new PODs/PORDs. The District must also adequately demonstrate that adding the new proposed point(s) of diversion will not initiate a new right with diversions from sources and/or in quantities beyond what is currently approved in Permit 21112.

Please note that the Division will issue public notice of the District’s petitions after the petitions have been filed and determined to be complete. Public notice of the petitions will allow public agencies and other interested parties to protest the proposed time extensions and changes. Environmental protests will need to be adequately addressed with the District’s CEQA document, consequently it is likely that a DEIR that is circulated prior to issuance of the Division’s public notice of the petitions will need to be amended and recirculated based on addressing future protest issues.

Brian Deason - 3 - MAY 18 2020 El Dorado Irrigation District

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Kate Gaffney at (916) 341-5360 or via email at [email protected]. Written correspondences should be addressed as follows: State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights, Attn: Kate Gaffney, P.O. Box 2000, Sacramento, CA 95812-2000.

Sincerely,

SCOTT MCFARLAND, SENIOR WRCE PETITIONS AND LICENSING UNIT DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA------CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 3 703 B STREET

MARYSVILLE, CA 95901 Making Conservation PHONE (530) 741-4286 a California Way of Life. TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov/dist3

May 15, 2020 GTS# 03-ED-2020-00171 SCH#: 2020049042

Brian Deason El Dorado Irrigation District 2890 Mosquito Road Placerville, CA 95667

Modification of Water Right Permit 21112

Dear Mr. Deason:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the Initial Consultation review process for the project referenced above. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability. The Local Development- Intergovernmental Review (LD-IGR) Program reviews land use projects and plans through the lenses of our mission and state planning priorities of infill, conservation, and travel-efficient development. To ensure a safe and efficient transportation system, we encourage early consultation and coordination with local jurisdictions and project proponents on all development projects that utilize the multimodal transportation network.

The proposed project seeks to modify its existing Water Right Permit 21112 to add authorized points of diversion and re-diversion to more effectively and efficiently meet the future water demands within El Dorado County. The following comments are based on the Notice of Preparation of an EIR

Hydraulics

Analysis should be completed to confirm that the receiving bodies of the diverted waters have the capacity to maintain the additional flows.

All grading and/or drainage improvements must maintain or improve existing drainage pathways and may not result in adverse hydrologic or hydraulic conditions within the State's highway right of way or to Caltrans drainage facilities. The developer must maintain or improve existing drainage patterns and/or facilities affected by the proposed project to the satisfaction of the State and Caltrans.

“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”

Brian Deason El Dorado Irrigation District May 15, 2020 Page 2

Traffic Operations – Highway Operations

• Include the State highway and freeway on the maps. • Indicate the route for the installation of the pipeline. • Indicate if any of the pipelines cross the State right of way. • Include where the construction staging areas will be located. • Where and how many construction vehicles will be entering/exiting the State highway. • The number of employees that will be working at the Water Treatment Plant.

Please provide our office with copies of any further actions regarding this project or future development of the property. We would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on any changes related to this development.

If you have any questions regarding these comments or require additional information, please contact David Dosanjh, by phone (530) 634-7606 or via email to [email protected].

Sincerely,

KEVIN YOUNT, Branch Chief Office of Transportation Planning Regional Planning Branch—East

“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”

Deason, Brian

From: [email protected] on behalf of Adam Poe Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 10:13 PM To: DL_P21112 Subject: Comments on Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for proposed modification of Water Right Permit 21112

Dear Environmental Resources Supervisor Brian Deason,

Hey Brian, My name is Adam Poe and I'm writing you in regards to the proposed modifications of Water Right Permit 21112. I'm a transplant from Long Beach, CA and currently reside in Sacramento. The South Fork American river is what made me fall in love with this region and is why I decided to stay in Northern, CA. On a weekly basis, I and many friends congregate to enjoy this wonderous resource that meanders through your county. Whitewater kayaking is our church, and it provides the same solace for our souls that any house of worship provides parishioners. In addition, we spend our money at local establishments such as the River Store, Argonaut, Lotus Pub, Marcos Pizza, etc. This proposed modification to Water Right Permit 21112 threatens to dewater or reduce flows on the SFA, and in doing so will reduce the flow of money in the Eldorado County economy. These small buisinesses are already threatened by the worst economic crises since the Great Depression. Please consider the impact to your local buisinesses including raft companies that draw crowds all summer long and consider the benefits to mental health provided by a flowing river.

Thank you for your time, Adam Poe

Sincerely, Adam Poe 1905 10th St Sacramento, CA 95811‐7048 [email protected]

Comments on the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting for the Permit 21112 Project

Comments by: Nancy Dagle, 9612 Allegheny Drive, Sacramento, CA 95827 Email: [email protected]

The issue of diverting water from the South Fork of the American River was negotiated several decades ago with El Dorado County Water Agency on behalf of Eldorado Irrigation District (EID). As the result of an agreement for the opposition groups to drop their protest of water right 21112 before the State of California, EID was allowed to divert water at Folsom Reservoir. It now seems that this agreement no longer meets the needs of EID. The commitment by all parties should be adhered to for the following reasons:

1) By allowing diversions upstream of Folsom Reservoir, recreational flows will be diminished to the point of non-use of source by rafts, kayaks, and canoes. The scheduled flows are necessary for navigation of reaches such as Kyburz, Golden Gate, and below Chili Bar on the South Fork of the American. 2) A reduction of recreational use would translate into an economic deficit for the local communities as visitor use would decrease. 3) An increase in diversions would negatively impact ground water recharge in the project areas. The water levels in local wells would drop resulting in a deficit of water for humans, wildlife, and vegetation. 4) The reduction of water would create significant damage to the South Fork of the American River riparian habitat. A reduction of water would cause die off of California native plants in the riparian zone. This die off would increase sedimentation loss which would be transported into the reduced South Fork of the American River flows. The decrease of water clarity due to sedimentation would impact bentic organisms and fish.

Please note that any attempt to dismiss the original agreement will not be agreed to. Please put me on the list to receive future notices and documents on this project. Thank you.

El Dorado Irrigation District 2890 Mosquito Road Placerville, CA 95667 Attn: Brian Deason, Environmental Resources Supervisor [email protected] Via electronic mail

Re: Comments on the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Dear Sirs: The South Fork of the American River is one of the premier and most utilized year-around whitewater recreation waterways in the entire United States. In addition to boaters from El Dorado County it also draws rafters and kayakers from around the United States as well as many other nations. Such visitation provides a major source of income to El Dorado County businesses. Indeed, commercial and non-commercial boating is the fiscal engine that drives the economy of the entire Lotus-Coloma Valley and it’s nearby environs. Among many issues that must be addressed in your EIR I would ask that a realistic assessment of impacts to whitewater boating on the South Fork of the American River downstream of Kyburz, Slab Creek Dam and Chili Bar Dam be made. I note that there are literally dozens of other potential impacts to be addressed, and I know that other individuals and organizations central to those interests and concerns will be sharing their ideas with you. Having said that, and more to the relevant point, I would like to make the following observations. Two decades ago the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) applied for a water right to divert 17,000 acre feet of water annually from several locations on the South Fork upstream of Chili Bar Dam. Opposition from many groups and individuals blocked State of California approval of that water right. In response EID formally committed to only diverting that water from Folsom Reservoir which is downstream of the boatable sections. Based on that formal commitment the protests were removed and the State of California granted the water right. In the intervening years new EID management and Board members have been seated. EID has recently issued a Notice of Preparation for diverting that water from above Chili Bar. Therefore we are now reminding current management and Board members of our opposition to those upstream diversion locations and the commitment EID made. It is up to them to honor EID’s commitment and not pursue the request to divert that water from above Chili Bar. A deal is a deal. Sincerely, Scott and Deborah Kruse, Residents and Business Owners Spirit of Place – Environmental Consultancy, PO Box 320, Coloma CA 95613 elite sports photography

El Dorado Irrigation District 2890 Mosquito Road Placerville, CA 95667 Attn: Brian Deason, Environmental Resources Supervisor [email protected] Via electronic mail

Re: Comments on the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed modification of Water Right Permit 21112

Dear Sirs:

I understand that as part of the proposed modification of Water Right Permit 21112 that El Dorado Irrigation District is planning to divert 17K AF of water from upstream of Chili Bar Dam. Simply put, this will put a direct and negative impact on my business.

Between Memorial Day and Labor Day Hotshot Imaging typically takes over 1 million photos of commercial and non-commercial boaters and kayakers on the South Fork of the American River. These folks come from all over the state to enjoy our whitewater recreation and hopefully purchase a picture as a fond reminder of the fun they had in our community. We usually employ about 25 employees from the surrounding community. This not only provides a living but is a first job for many young people first entering the workforce. Additionally, our customers, having rafted and viewed/purchased their whitewater photos then head out to look for a local place to eat lunch or dinner. Again, more money spent in our county.

We operate on very slim margins. This diversion of waters may actually be the tipping point of forcing us to close our doors for business. We’ve been fortunate to be in business for 18 years and hope to continue to do so. I don’t know how many other businesses in our area have contacted you but be assured that this proposal will also negatively impact their businesses as well. I implore you to reconsider your proposal and retract your proposal to divert said waters.

Thank you for this consideration.

Sincerely,

Eric M. Kromps

Eric M. Kromps Owner, Hotshot Imaging, Inc.

Work: 530-621-0400 x15 Email: [email protected] Website: www.hotshotimaging.com

p.o. box 1190 • lotus, ca 95651 • p: 530.621.0400 • f: 530.621.0401 • www.hotshotimaging.com Deason, Brian

From: Jason Williams Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 7:20 PM To: DL_P21112 Subject: EID Environmental Impact Studies for Upstream Diversion

Dear Eldorado County,

We sincerely rely on you to abide by your word and stick to your agreement to divert water at Folsom Reservoir. Upstream diversions imperil recreation and fishery interests in our shared community water resources. It is upsetting and destabilizing to our community when attempts are made to change good, working agreements. There is no need for upstream water diversion.

Kind Regards,

Jason Williams

1 Deason, Brian

From: John Simpkin Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 6:26 PM To: Deason, Brian Cc: Simpkin John Gmail; Theresa Simsiman Subject: Proposed Diversions (Water Right Permit 21112)

Dear Brian, I am an EID customer and an EID ERC member. I am writing seeking specific information regarding the impact that proposed changes to EID’s Water Right Permit 21112 would have on both economic and environment resources in El Dorado County.

Please provide the economic impact analysis of EID's proposal on the commercial whitewater industry in the county. Last time I looked into it, the industry served orders of magnitude more people the the Rubicon Trail.

Please provide the economic impact analysis of EID's proposal on the monies brought to the county by private citizens recreating on the SF American, i.e fishermen/women, hikers, kayakers, rafters, canoers, swimmers, picnicers. Apparently this proposal would affect five whitewater runs, all below Kyburz.

Please provide (even preliminary) EIRs on EID's proposal as it relates to wildlife along the river. I'm particularly interested in the impact the proposal would have on riparian flora and amphibian communities along the river.

Thank you,

John Simpkin 530 621 1941

1 From: LJ Laurent To: DL_P21112; Sullivan, Jennifer Cc: LJ Laurent Subject: Comments sent 5 9 2020 NOP Warren Contract diversions Date: Saturday, May 9, 2020 2:02:06 PM Attachments: EID comment 21112 NOP 5 9 20 SENT.odt

To: EID From: Laurette J. Laurent May 9 2020

Re: Comments in re NOP Proposal 21112

Thank you for opportunity to do extensive research, and produce lengthy comments on this P21112.

Please find my comments and an extensive compilation of Sources and Public Records I used in reaching clarity. It was only upon receipt of EID PRA Response #1, that I had a full understanding of this proposal, its intent, and desire for an unwonted exception to normal USBR procedure.

Clearly it is NOT consistent with normal ordinary Reclamation Requirements ["excess storage"] and it has the sole effect of enabling EID to "water" housing development in higher elevation "wildfire areas" of El Dorado County.

Since not even 1 single Lic. CA Civil Engineer submitted a Certified Report on advisability, feasibility and Public Welfare, it is to me, a collection of opinions, and desires to reach a total six times as many housing units in a short period of time.

Since science finds we may be in another "mega-drought", this particular EID attempt to build housing in forested areas of eastern EDC is particularly distasteful.

Wouldn't EID rate-payers be better served than by this proposal to take American River water out of critical habitat downstream where they can enjoy it? https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-16/california-climate-monsters-megadrought-study

It pains us to think of removing even one drop of American River water from downstream -- during these extremely challenging times and drought. I'd certainly like to know who was the originating point of this particular Proposal, especially since there is no evidence of consultation with SMUD or other interested parties. I reviewed materials back to 1990, wishing that EID Chief Engineer Brian Mueller had also done so. Also noted, EID hired a former USBR non-engineer employee who reviewed earlier contracts and should have known the ropes. https://www.usbr.gov/recman/wtr/wtr-p04.pdf https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=20142 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/decisions/d1600_d1649/wrd1635.pdf Comments Submitted to EID in re: NOP 21112 Warren Contract American River water. May 9, 2020 by Laurette J. Laurent

EID seeks to over-ride terms of Warren Contract, in order to remove AR Water at high elevation of El Dorado County EDC. EID does not offer any reasons for re-writing the Reclamation Terms, nor does it provide even a single Lic. Engineering Report on the obvious consequences of enabling housing construction in the wildfire areas of higher elevations in EDC.

Much of needed information came from EID PRA RESPONSE. None of late info was contained in the NOP filed with CEQA Gov. Clearinghouse. Note that NO SUPPORTING INFORMATION was given at all. No Engineering Reports were ever done. Also consulted is current EDC General Plan.

This EID NOP Porposal to take Warren Contract Water from eastern El Dorado County, high elevation, is litle more than a way to enable and cause the development of “six times as many housing” units, which are called for in the EDC General Plan update.

Note there is absolutely NO consideration of usages for this water – except for Development in higher elevations of EDC. This is nothing more than a development friendly water diversion for the WILDFIRE AREAS of EDC.

Warren Contracts are dependent upon EXCESS WATER STORAGE in Reclamation facilities – in this case that is Folsom Reservoir. EID would never be able to develop in Eastern county forests if they had to pump this water up to the Eastern slope. EID presented no Engineering Certification that this water diversion was necessary EXCEPT for the un-expressed Purpose of allowing for MORE Housing Development in the Eastern portions of EDC, which is basically WILDFIRE LAND. The EDC General Plan and the NOP Material make NO MENTION of wildfire dangers, Fire Prevention, Fighting Wildfires, and how diverting at hgher elevations would have any Public Benefit. It appears clear EID is responding to development pressures for housing in higher EDC, without providing any clear Evidence such housing would have any Public Benefit for the State of California as a whole.

The county is pursuing more rural, forested housing with this proposal, and that is NOT an important use of Warren Contract water, which is water from the American River. Diverting up higher would deprive all habitat, farms, agriculture, animals, fish, below the diversions – to suffer the loss of critical water. This EID NOP to pay for EIR documents, without justifying any BENEFICIAL USES of this American River water WOTUS, is uwise, destructive, undertaken without any Certifications by their Engineers.

Anyone who supports “sustainable growth” in California, and intelligent use of our extremely limited WATER SUPPLY will oppose this deviation from the normal & usual Terms & Conditions of a Warren Contract supply of water. EID has a decades-long record of seeking huges amounts of water for growth of housing. This is just another attempt to fulfill the ambitions of residential developers and others with monetary interests which are not demonstrated to be in the Public Interest.

This is one of many, many EID proposals to draw more American River water from wherever they choose. I am totally opposed to use of their Rate-payers monies for such a proposal. EID has many other/better uses of rate-payers funds, such as improvement of facilities, and Conservation efforts during our on-going drought.

Below are excerpts of EID Public Records, NOT released in NOP, nor printed in any local EDC paper.

Submitted May 9, 2020, by Laurette J. Laurent Previously: Private Enforcer CWA; Designated Party in LAR discussions at RWQCB.

What follows are recently received PRA Response Materials.

EID BD minutes April 2020

Funding Total funding in the amount of $192,409 is required to complete Phase 1, which includes the $157,409 contract to Ascent and $35,000 of capitalized labor for stakeholder outreach, project management, and document review. Funding is from 100% water FCCs. The District has and will continue to request cost share funding assistance from the El Dorado County Water Agency to support these efforts.

Board Decision/Options Option 1: Award a contract to Ascent Environmental Inc. in the not-to-exceed amount of $157,409, for professional technical services in support of the District's proposed project to establish additional authorized points of diversion for the District's Water Right Permit 21112, and authorize total funding of $192,409 for the Permit 21112 Change in Point of Diversion, Project No. 16003.

Option 2: Take other action as directed by the Board. Option 3: Take no action. Staff/General Manager’s Recommendation Option 1

Supporting Documents Attached None ______ASCENT: Ascent Environmental, Inc. Gary Jakobs, Project Director/Principalin-Charge Kristi Black, Project Manager Jessica Mitchell, Environmental Planner

Primary consultant, project management, technical analysis, public involvement and scoping Zanjero Michael Preszler, Project Manager Robert Heather, Staff Engineer Subconsultant, project definition, water demands and operational details Far Western Sharon Waechter, Principal Investigator Subconsultant, cultural resources studies, and Native American consultation Stillwater Sciences Scott Wilcox, Principal and Sr Scientist Heather Bowen Neff, Project Manager Subconsultant, fisheries resources, water temperature ------BELOW: Only 1 engineer is listed as participant in this NOP. Below is shown his license expires in a month. While EID's chosen firm may be LISTED by SWRCB & DWR on their CONSULTANTS LIST This does mean Endorsement of consultant group. “The Division of Water Rights does not recommend or endorse any particular firm or consultant. Source: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_info/docs/consultantslist.pdf for Zanjero Zanjero Water Right Applications, Change Petitions, Extensions of Time, Transfers, Water Availability Analysis, Hydrologic Reports, Watermaster Services, Expert Testimony, Litigation Support, Reporting, Operational Modeling, Surface Water, Groundwater, CEQA/NEPA Compliance, etc. P: (530) 368-6343 Michael Preszler, P.E. Website: www.zanjero-water.com Zanjero only shows working for Imperial Irrigation District. SoCal. Prof. Engineer Search: Lic. 55133 ISSUANCE DATE FEBRUARY 9, 1996 EXPIRATION DATEJUNE 30, 2020

Reclamation Press Release. During drought EID gave water to Westlands. https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/includes/documentShow.php?Doc_ID=22529 Contact: Jesse Saich, (530) 642-4127, [email protected] FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Placerville, Calif. — At a special meeting held on April 1, 2015, the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) Board of Directors unanimously approved a conditional agreement to transfer surplus water to central California’s Westlands Water District in 2015. The maximum possible transfer amount is approximately 6,000 acre-feet, although the actual amount is likely to be considerably less. This water transfer could generate up to $4.6 million of additional revenue for EID, subject to both water availability and regulatory approvals. It also includes an upfront, non-refundable option payment of $128,600. In addition, this added revenue could make up for lost hydro generation revenue due the banking of additional water at Sly Park’s Jenkinson Lake. The agreement is conditional upon approval from state and federal regulators.

BELOW IS INFORMATION from Mt. Democrat Newspaper https://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/eid-plans-to-sell-water-again/

EID plans to sell water again

By Dawn Hodson On Monday the El Dorado Irrigation District board approved selling up to 5,000 acre-feet of water to the Dudley Ridge Water District and the Kern County Water Agency. The water will be taken from Weber Reservoir, Silver Lake and Caples Lake and travel via the California Aqueduct to buyers in southern Kings and Kern counties. Map courtesy of EID Taking a second shot at selling excess water, the El Dorado Irrigation District board unanimously approved a potential sale of up to 5,000 acre-feet of water to the Dudley Ridge Water District and the Kern County Water Agency. This is the second such water transfer EID has undertaken. The last one was in 2015 when they sold water to the Westlands Water District. The water will be taken from Weber Reservoir, Silver Lake and Caples Lake and be sold at $350 an acre-foot, which is above the Yuba Accord pricing schedule of $200 an acre-foot. According to EID, the Yuba Accord serves as the “traditional metric for gaging water transfer pricing annually.” Staff said they are continuing to work to secure approvals from the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Water Resources and State Water Resources Control Board to move the water and expect the water transfers to take place as soon as July 1. The board also reviewed the 2017 audit results, with the auditors giving the agency an unqualified (clean) opinion that the financial statements present fairly the financial position of the district. Brian Henderson of Hudson Henderson & Company, Inc. provided an overview of the audit results. Highlights of the audit include that EID’s total assets exceeded its total liabilities by $373.7 million. Capital assets, less accumulated depreciation, totaled $695 million which were $2.6 million higher than 2016. Operating revenue was $67 million, or $8.8 million more than the previous year. The increase was primarily due to higher water sales and hydroelectric sales with water sales and services increasing by $2.4 million and hydroelectric sales increasing by $5.1 million. Property taxes were relatively flat. Facility Capacity Charges (the cost to connect to the system) increased by $1.6 million to $14 million. Operating expenses, not including depreciation and amortization, increased $3.3 million to $50.7 million. The majority of the increase was due to higher personnel and professional services expenses related to the winter storm events.

SUBSEQUENT ARTICLE on 2015 WATER SALE, by Dawn Hodson: In other matters, it was reported that Director George had been elected as chairman of the Association of California Water Agencies Region 3 Board of Directors. ACWA is the largest statewide coalition of public water agencies in the country. George’s term will run from January 2016 through the end of 2017. It was also reported that EID had successfully completed the water transfer to the Westlands Water District. Some 2,300 acre-feet of water ended up being transferred, generating expected revenues, including incidental power generation, of $2.2 million. The first time the district has done such a transfer, staff said the process used promised to be a “road map for similar transactions in the years ahead.” Staff emphasized that had the district not transferred and sold the water, it would have reverted to the Bureau of Reclamation and they would have sold it. Staff went on to note that conservation for the month of September was down to only 20 percent. The district has a state mandated conservation goal of 28 percent. Conservation of recycled water conservation was at 23 percent; however, there is no mandated goal for recycled water. Lake capacity as of Sept. 30 was 68 percent at Jenkinson Lake, 65 percent at Caples Lake and 18 percent at Folsom Lake.

BELOW is information obtained SOLELY through PRA Request. This information was not found at CEQAnet.gov. This represents a statement which EID could have circulated PRIOR to NOP filing; and EID could have circulated to EID rate-payers.

EID 2020 ADDED INFO March 23, 2020 AIS – Information Item March 23, 2020 Permit 21112 Additional Points of Diversion, Project No. 16003 4 Pages

Summary of Issue Water Right Permit 21112 presently allows the District to directly divert or re-divert water supplies provided by the operation of Project 184 for consumptive uses at Folsom Reservoir. The single point of diversion at Folsom Reservoir precludes the District from utilizing this supply throughout the entirety of its service area. The adopted 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan includes a project, Permit 21112 Change in Point of Diversion, Project No. 16003, to petition the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to add additional authorized upstream points of diversion to Water Right Permit 21112 to meet the District’s long-term water supply needs. This agenda item provides the Board and public with an update on this project.

The water right authorized under Permit 21112 is for diversion and consumptive use anywhere within the District’s contiguous service area. In order to utilize the Permit 21112 water supplies throughout the District’s service area, the District must add additional authorized upstream points of diversion to Permit 21112

In addition, the District proposes to add a point of re-diversion from the El Dorado Diversion Dam at Jenkinson Lake to allow for storage of Permit 21112 water in Jenkinson Lake. Adding these additional points of diversion and re-diversion will require modification of the existing water right permit by the SWRCB through a water rights change petition process, and is therefore subject to SWRCB review and approval.

Project Objectives and Benefits Long term water supply planning documents indicate the Permit 21112 supply will be necessary to serve areas of the District east of El Dorado Hills and higher in elevation

The use of SMUD’s White Rock Penstock for diverting Permit 21112 water will require a separate approval from SMUD along with the construction of additional water treatment and conveyance facilities.

District planning documents have identified a new water treatment plant location south of Placerville in Diamond Springs. After treatment, water would be gravity fed through new conveyance infrastructure to customers west of Placerville. In 2008, EDWPA, on behalf of its members including the District, filed applications with the SWRCB for partial assignment of certain already-recognized water rights to water supplies stored in the UARP. That effort to obtain consumptive water rights from SMUD’s UARP became known as the EDWPA Supplemental Water Rights Project. Progress toward obtaining the Supplemental Water Rights Project slowed in response to strong opposition from downstream water users.

The Permit 21112 Project to add points of diversion and rediversion upstream is separate from and entirely independent of the Supplemental Water Rights Project. Besides the fact that both projects would use the District’s existing intake at Folsom Reservoir and SMUD’s White Rock facility as points of delivery or diversion, the two projects are unrelated. They share no common water source—Permit 21112 supplies derive from Project 184 sources (i.e. Caples, Aloha, Silver and Echo Lakes), while the Supplemental Water Rights Project supplies derive from the UARP sources (i.e. Loon Lake, Union Valley Reservoir, etc.). Most significantly, Permit 21112 is a reliable supply of water that already benefits District customers, whereas the Supplemental Water Rights Project is still in planning and development. With the dissolution of EDWPA in 2019, it remains uncertain whether or how the Supplemental Water Rights Project will come to fruition.

Phased Project Approach The Permit 21112 Project is divided into two phases. Phase 1, which is currently underway, involves technical modeling, stakeholder outreach, and environmental analyses. The SWRCB’s discretionary action to approve additional points of diversion under the existing water right permit will be subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The SWRCB must also find that the proposed change in points of diversion does not cause legal injury to other legal users of the water and that it does not unreasonably impact fish and wildlife. Under CEQA, the District, as lead agency, must consider the project's overall potential environmental impacts. Therefore, Phase 1 includes the publication of the CEQA Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Notice of Preparation (NOP). Phase 1 also includes the submittal of the change petition with the SWRCB. Staff anticipates release of the NOP in April 2020, and the petition submittal shortly thereafter.

Following receipt of comments on the NOP, staff will develop a focused scope of work and Request for Proposals (RFP) for Phase 2 of the Project including preparation of the EIR and SWRCB water right hearing support, which will be brought to the Board for consideration. Phase 2 involves: (1) preparation of an Environmental Import Report; (2) technical assistance in resolving potential protests of the water right change petition; and (3) continued support and technical analyses as necessary through certification of the Final EIR, SWRCB hearings, and the ultimate water right decision of the change petition

None – Information Only Recommendation Information only Attachments None

______Elizabeth Leeper Senior Deputy General Counsel

______Brian Mueller Engineering Director

______Brian Poulsen General Counsel

______Jim Abercrombie General Manager El Dorado Irrigation District 2890 Mosquito Road Placerville, CA 95667 Attn: Brian Deason, Environmental Resources Supervisor [email protected] Via electronic mail

Re: Comments on the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Dear Sirs:

The South Fork of the American River is one of the premier and most utilized year- Environmental around whitewater recreation waterways in the entire United States. In addition to boaters from El Dorado County it also draws rafters and kayakers from around the Traveling United States as well as many other nations. Such visitation provides a major source Companions of income to El Dorado County businesses. Indeed, commercial and non- commercial boating is the fiscal engine that drives the economy of the entire Lotus- Coloma Valley and it’s nearby environs. Fort Mason Center Landmark Bldg. C Among many issues that must be addressed in your EIR I would ask that a realistic San Francisco assessment of impacts to whitewater boating on the South Fork of the American California 94123 River downstream of Kyburz, Slab Creek Dam and Chili Bar Dam be made. I note T: 415.474.7662 that there are literally dozens of other potential impacts to be addressed, and I know F: 415.474.3919 that other individuals and organizations central to those interests and concerns will www.etctrips.org be sharing their ideas with you.

Having said that, and more to the relevant point, I would like to make the following observations. Two decades ago the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) applied for a water right to divert 17,000 acre feet of water annually from several locations on the South Fork upstream of Chili Bar Dam. Opposition from many groups and individuals blocked State of California approval of that water right. In response EID formally committed to only diverting that water from Folsom Reservoir, which is downstream of the boatable sections. Based on that formal commitment the protests were removed and the State of California granted the water right.

In the intervening years new EID management and Board members have been seated. EID has recently issued a Notice of Preparation for diverting that water from above Chili Bar. Therefore we are now reminding current management and Board members of our opposition to those upstream diversion locations and the commitment EID made. It is up to them to honor EID’s commitment and not pursue the request to divert that water from above Chili Bar. A deal is a deal.

Sincerely,

DanielRiver Program Berger Manager Environmental Traveling Companions From: [email protected] on behalf of Stacie Sherman To: DL_P21112 Subject: Comments on Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for proposed modification of Water Right Permit 21112 Date: Friday, May 8, 2020 11:23:50 PM

Dear Environmental Resources Supervisor Brian Deason,

There are millions of people visits to the South Fork of the American River every year and the people that use the river are a huge benefit to the county economy.

I've rafted the South Fork many times and when I have company visiting from out of town I always encourage them to go rafting on our beautiful river.

EID can supply their customers from Folsom Lake like they have in the past. If they keep their water diversion point at Folsom Lake, all the positive benefits of maintaining the water flows for recreation and conservation will be maintained.

I hope that the Water Right Permit 21112 modification is rejected.

Sincerely, Stacie Sherman 9635 Snowberry Way Orangevale, CA 95662-5517 [email protected]

EXHIBIT F

ZANJERO SCOPE OF WORK FOR HYDROLOGIC MODELING SUPPORT

RFQ/RFP for August 25, 2020 Professional Services for Modification of WR Permit 21112 - EIR Page 21 of 21 Project No. 16003.01 Scope-of-Work and Cost Proposal July 22, 2020 Page 1

Scope‐of‐Work and Cost Proposal Modification of Water Right Permit 21112: Strategic Support and Technical Assistance

Submitted to El Dorado Irrigation District by ZANJERO

Zanjero will initiate the strategic support and technical assistance consulting services to support the El Dorado Irrigation District (District) in connection with the modification of water right Permit 21112 by carrying out the tasks described below. The costs and description of services are summarized in the following:

Task 1.0 Program Kick‐Off, Oversight and Coordination $38,690 Task 2.0 Strategy and Process Review 26,240 Task 3.0 Development of Technical Information 99,600 Task 4.0 Hydrologic Modeling 198,320 Task 5.0 Environmental Impact Report 33,040 Total $395,890

We are available to begin work immediately. The work will be completed within a schedule supporting the project following written authorization to proceed.

I. Scope‐of‐Work Task 1.0 Program Kick‐Off, Oversight and Coordination 1.1 Project Management and Coordinate Task Activities Zanjero will, over the duration of the project, undertake ongoing management and oversight of project activities. This will require detailed coordination with the District and the project team. Activities under this task are assumed to include; schedule development and review, progress monitoring, technical collaboration, personnel/staff planning, budgetary oversight, and ongoing liaison with the District and project team.

ZANJERO 169 PARKSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 110 ▪ FOLSOM, CA 95762 P 916-542-7895 ▪ C 530-368-6343 Scope-of-Work and Cost Proposal July 22, 2020 Page 2

1.2 Team Kick‐Off Meeting with the District Zanjero will prepare for and attend a three (3) hour project kick‐off meeting with the District. This kick‐ off meeting is intended to officially initiate the project and will address matters such as: project approach, key project issues, preliminary project schedule, immediate activities, lines of communication/reporting, key milestones, confidentiality, and contract administration.

1.3 Coordination Meetings with the District Over the duration of the project assignment, Zanjero will prepare for and attend up to eight (8) two‐ hour coordination meetings with the District. These meetings would be scheduled to provide a venue for discussion on topics including, but not necessarily limited to the implementation of the strategic approach, interagency liaison, key environmental issues, project definition, potential alternatives, hydrologic modeling, and water availability. These would be ad hoc meetings, and scheduled as specific needs arise.

1.4 Project Meetings Zanjero will prepare for and attend up to three (3) 2‐hour meetings with various agencies that might include, the SWRCB, SMUD, other agencies or stakeholders to discuss various issues and concerns, modeling and specific details associated with the water rights change petition filing.

Task 2.0 Strategy and Process Review

2.1 EIR Kick‐Off Team Meeting Zanjero will participate in a single half‐day meeting with CEQA team leaders. At this meeting, matters including the proposed project definition, CEQA schedule and process overview, project approach, lines of communication, documentation protocols, and reporting requirements will be discussed among the team members. Key milestones will be identified. This meeting is intended to get the consultant project team up to speed on the project, understand assigned tasks/roles, and clarify project details.

2.2 Review CEQA Project Description Zanjero will review the completed water rights change petition to understand the project description. This is important to assure the technical analysis approach and methodology is developed to support project needs.

2.3 CEQA Project Alternatives 2.3.1 Review All Existing/Past Alternatives

While many of the alternatives for the proposed project are known, it is incumbent upon our team to carefully review all existing and past alternatives to ensure that no potentially feasible alternative is

ZANJERO 169 PARKSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 110 ▪ FOLSOM, CA 95762 P 916-542-7895 ▪ C 530-368-6343

Scope-of-Work and Cost Proposal July 22, 2020 Page 3

overlooked. This will primarily include a thorough review of the Integrated Water Master Plan as well as other documentation that have, either in the past, or currently, identified potential new alternatives.

2.3.2 Develop Alternatives Screening Criteria

Zanjero will support the CEQA team in development of screening criteria information. It is anticipated that a wide range of screening criteria will be generated covering each of the key implementation and associated decision factors in the selection of any one alternative.

2.3.3 Develop Preliminary Alternatives Listing

Zanjero will work with the CEQA team and support development of a comprehensive listing of all alternatives. This will represent the initial array of alternatives upon which screening criteria (see Subtask 2.4.2, above) will be applied to generate a reasonable range of alternatives for the EIR. These alternatives will be identified in the context of the project objectives, previously established.

2.3.4 Review Write‐Up of Alternatives

It is assumed that the CEQA team will lead the write‐up of alternatives to the proposed project. Upon completion of the screening process, this task allows Zanjero to review and provide comments on the alternatives that passed screening criteria and are to be carried forward in the EIR for further detailed analysis. This will be important to assure that the technical methodology and approach is designed to adequately support evaluation of each Alternative.

3.0 Development of Technical Information

3.1 Hydrology Data Zanjero will use daily hydrology information compiled for the District’s Project 184 FERC relicensing process. This historical unimpaired daily data set starts in 1972 and will be extended to water year 2019 for the study period at all project operational locations and interested nodes. Basic data will be collected, reduced, reviewed for quality, adjusted and estimated as necessary to develop complete hydrologic information to support evaluations in the EIR. For baseline conditions, hydrology will be based upon historic hydrologic information disaggregated to selected simulation model inflow locations. For future cumulative conditions, it is anticipated that an available climate change data set developed for the American River basin will be utilized. If a suitable climate change data set is not available, additional funding would be required to develop a data set. For all modeling scenario datasets, Zanjero will develop procedures, criteria and assumptions to determine availability of water from the South Fork American River watershed over the study period. The Baseline and Proposed Project Conditions will use hydrologic data developed from historical measurements while the Future Cumulative Condition will use climate change hydrologic data.

ZANJERO 169 PARKSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 110 ▪ FOLSOM, CA 95762 P 916-542-7895 ▪ C 530-368-6343

Scope-of-Work and Cost Proposal July 22, 2020 Page 4

3.1.1 Hydrology Development Documentation

This task includes documenting the approach and methodology to estimate historic mean daily runoff information for 1972 through 2019 in report form. The report developed under this task could be presented to those parties interested in the basic hydrologic data and as an appendix to the EIR.

3.2 Water Demand Projections

It is assumed that water demands as described in the District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan will be used for this project. This task is to understand District demands to assure that they meet the needs of this project.

3.3 Modeling Output Interface/With Impact Analysis Zanjero will provide internal interfacing with the environmental resource specialists. For those resources dependent on hydrology and the potential for hydrologic change, the technical interface will assure that the proper metrics are generated and presented as modeling output, available for use by the resource specialists. Tables of information, graphical interfacing and, where appropriate, GIS platforms, will be used.

3.4 Hydrologic Analysis Before granting a change petition, the SWRCB evaluates if the change could result in a decrease in stream flow. This analysis is known as a Hydrologic Analysis. Under this task, Zanjero will develop the Hydrologic Analysis to support the change petition providing a stand‐alone report that will include a description of the project, quantities, rates, timing, and frequency of water required from sources to actuate the change petition. It will also demonstrate that other water right holders would not be affected by the change petition. Much of the technical information in the Hydrologic Analysis will be developed under other tasks. This task will assemble information pertinent to the needs of the SWRCB in its decision making on the change petition.

4.0 Hydrologic Modeling

4.1 ResSim Model Development

A daily time‐step operational computer model of the South Fork American River watershed project area will be developed using the HEC‐ ResSim computer software developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center. This open and available project simulation model that can simulate river and reservoir operations for evaluation of proposed projects. A ResSim model of SMUD’s Upper American River Project was developed as part of that project’s FERC relicensing process. This task will utilize that model as a platform adding the District’s South Fork American River operations, the proposed project and alternatives that require quantitative modeling. Much of the effort required for this task has been completed under various other water initiatives in the basin, including original simulation modeling in support of the P21112 Permit. Existing

ZANJERO 169 PARKSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 110 ▪ FOLSOM, CA 95762 P 916-542-7895 ▪ C 530-368-6343

Scope-of-Work and Cost Proposal July 22, 2020 Page 5 available information will be relied on to the extent possible for increased efficiency and to assure consistency with other efforts in the basin. The model will be used to evaluate the proposed project baseline, CEQA alternatives, and future cumulative conditions. This task includes model calibration and validation.

4.1.1 ResSim Modeling of Proposed Project and Alternatives

The ResSim model developed under Task 4.1 will be used to evaluate scenarios including Proposed Project, Alternatives, and Future Cumulative conditions. A “modeling run” is used to describe a particular scenario, such as the Proposed Project. Under a modeling run, there can be multiple operational simulations required to describe the modeling run. For example, for the Proposed Project modeling run we anticipate three separate ResSim simulations; 1) diversion of 17,000 af at the Kyburz Diversion, 2) diversion of 17,000 af at White Rock Powerhouse Penstock/Slab Creek Reservoir, and 3) 17,000 af at Folsom Reservoir. These three operational simulations make up the Proposed Project Run. Similarly, it is anticipated that multiple computer simulation runs may be needed to fully describe each of the Alternatives and Future Cumulative Runs. Because the existing P21112 includes a single diversion location at Folsom Reservoir, it is anticipated that a single computer simulation is required to describe the Baseline Condition.

It is likely that all alternatives to the proposed project exist as variable diversion locations and amounts. For modeling purposes, the basic hydrology, regardless of alternative, is assumed to remain the same between modeling runs. It is assumed that two alternatives will require modeling runs. Therefore, it is anticipated that five modeling runs will be prepared. The modeling runs are:

Run 1 Baseline Condition Run 2 Proposed Project Run 3 Alternative 1 Run 4 Alternative 2 Run 5 Future Cumulative

Modeling Runs include up to three separate computer simulations needed to quantify diversions under potential scenarios. Four comparisons of modeling runs will be performed. The comparisons will be between the Baseline Condition and the Proposed Project, the Baseline Condition and Alternatives 1 and 2, and the Baseline Condition and the Future Cumulative.

4.1.2 Hydropower Modeling

Zanjero will determine the potential hydropower generation effects of the Proposed Project and alternatives at the District’s P‐184, SMUD’S White Rock Powerhouse, and PG&E’s Chili Bar Hydroelectric projects. This will provide an indication of the potential effects of the project on hydropower resources.

ZANJERO 169 PARKSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 110 ▪ FOLSOM, CA 95762 P 916-542-7895 ▪ C 530-368-6343 Scope-of-Work and Cost Proposal July 22, 2020 Page 6

Additionally, the project team will look at pumping power effects to the District as a result of changing water diversion locations and resultant pumping heads.

4.1.3 ‐ White‐Water Boating Recreation

Zanjero will determine the potential white‐water flow effects of the proposed project and alternatives on the South Fork American River. Mean daily simulated flow model output (from Task 4.1.1) will be disaggregated into hourly data suitable for whitewater boating evaluation at up to nine (9) sites. This will provide an indication of the potential effects of the project and alternatives on recreational white‐ water boating resources. Comparison information will be developed as described in “Modeling Scenarios” in Task 4.1.1.

4.1.4 – ResSim Modeling Technical Memorandum

Zanjero will document the technical approach, methodology and findings in a technical report as it is an important element as this analysis will be used to evaluate project effects and support findings in the EIR. Zanjero will document simulation model assumptions, baseline and future cumulative study methodology, and results. Each of the modeling simulations will be documented and summarized. A draft modeling report fit for including as an appendix to the EIR will be prepared and submitted in Microsoft Word format to the District and project team for review. Comments received on the draft technical report will be incorporated into the final technical report. The final report will be provided to the District in electronic format.

4.2 CALSIM II Model Dataset Verification of Model Assumptions

This task is to coordinate with specific stakeholders primarily the USBR on salient features that should be included in the CALSIM modeling effort. For example, for the base conditions modeling runs, we will verify the base hydrology, Water Forum cuts, SRWRS, Yuba River Operation, Trinity ROD, Folsom Flood Control, Folsom/EID TCD, Freeport Project, EBMUD demands, Banks pumping, EWA, CVPIA b2, any current SWRCB filed applications, and other. And for the Future Cumulative modeling runs, we will verify the future hydrology, LAR FMS, CVP pending BiOps, BDCP, Delta Tunnels, etc.

4.3 CALSIM II Modeling of Proposed Project and Alternatives CALSIM II is a generalized monthly time‐step water resources modeling system for evaluating operational alternatives for simulation modeling of the California State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) operations. CALSIM II modeling will provide the hydrologic output data needed to undertake the water‐related Folsom Reservoir and downstream resource impact evaluations. CALSIM utilizes a comparative methodology comparing one simulation’s output against another’s. Accordingly, a baseline model simulation first needs to be developed, then a project simulation. The impact analysis will use the numeric data output that compares these two simulations. Electronic templates will be used to make this comparison, by resource area, efficient and illustrative.

ZANJERO 169 PARKSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 110 ▪ FOLSOM, CA 95762 P 916-542-7895 ▪ C 530-368-6343

Scope-of-Work and Cost Proposal July 22, 2020 Page 7

For CALSIM II purposes, the hydrology, regardless of alternative, will remain the same. At this time, it is assumed that five simulations will be prepared with four comparisons as described in Task 4.1.1.

4.3.1 LAR Water Temperature Modeling

Modeled flow data from CALSIM II will be input to the LAR Water Temperature Model. This model will provide water temperature data (as mean monthly averages) at key locations along the LAR (e.g., Nimbus, Watt Avenue, H Street, confluence with the Sacramento River).

4.3.2 Sacramento River Water Temperature Modeling

Similar to the LAR water temperature modeling effort, CALSIM II hydrology output will be input to the Sacramento River Water Temperature Model. At key locations along the Sacramento River mainstem, the model will provide water temperature data (as mean monthly averages). Established templates for the modeling output will assist in making impact determinations based on riverine water temperatures.

4.4 Prepare Modeling Technical Memorandum Documenting the technical approach, methodology and findings in a technical report is an important element as this analysis will be used to evaluate project effects and support many findings in the EIR. Zanjero will document hydrology development, simulation model assumptions, baseline and future cumulative study methodology, and results. Each of the modeling simulations will be documented and summarized. A draft modeling report fit for including as an appendix to the EIR will be prepared and submitted in Microsoft Word format to the District and project team for review. Comments received on the draft technical report will be incorporated into the final technical report. The final report will be provided to the District in electronic format.

4.5 Develop Modeling Technical Appendices Data output from CALSIM II and its associated environmental models are voluminous. These data, organized in established templates, will be placed in the Technical Appendices to the EIR.

5.0 Environmental Impact Report 5.1 Administrative Draft EIR

Zanjero will review the Administrative Draft EIR prepared by the CEQA team and provide written comments to the District and project team focused primarily on technical water related evaluations and findings.

5.2 Public Draft Environmental Impact Report Zanjero will review the public Draft EIR and provide written comments to the District and project team.

ZANJERO 169 PARKSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 110 ▪ FOLSOM, CA 95762 P 916-542-7895 ▪ C 530-368-6343

Scope-of-Work and Cost Proposal July 22, 2020 Page 8

5.2.1 Address Final Environmental Impact Report

Zanjero will review water related public comments received on the Draft EIR and provide written comments and appropriate revisions. It is unknown at this time the amount and depth of comments that will be received on the Draft EIR, this task assumes 24 hours for the Zanjero Project Manager, 40 hours for the Scientist/Engineer, and 16 hours for Project Coordination/Administration.

5.3 Administrative Final Environmental Impact Report Zanjero will review the public Final EIR and provide written comments to the District and project team.

5.4 Final Environmental Impact Report Zanjero will support development of the Final EIR by making appropriate revisions and responses to comments on the Administrative Final EIR.

ZANJERO 169 PARKSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 110 ▪ FOLSOM, CA 95762 P 916-542-7895 ▪ C 530-368-6343

Scope-of-Work and Cost Proposal July 22, 2020 Page 9

II. Project Schedule The work effort described in this Scope‐of‐work will be coordinated with the District to meet the requirements of the project and is dependent on coordination with the CEQA team. An estimated schedule presented below represents our approach to the project schedule.

Estimated Schedule Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 Task 1.0 - Program Kick-Off, Oversight and Coordination 1.1 Project Management and Coordinate Task Activities 1.2 Team 3 - hour Kick-Off meeting with the District 1.3 Up to 8 - 2 hour Coordination Meetings with the District 1.4 Up to 3 - 2 hour Agency and other Stakeholder meetings Task 2.0 - Strategy and Process Review 2.1 EIR Kick-Off Team Meeting 2.2 Review/Comment CEQA Project Description 2.3 CEQA Project Alternatives 2.3.1 - Review Existing and Past Alternatives 2.3.2 - Develop Alternatives Screening Criteria 2.3.3 - Develop Preliminary Alternatives Listing 2.3.4 - Review Write-up of Alternatives Task 3.0 - Development of Technical Information 3.1 Hydrology Data 3.1.1 - Hydrology Development Documentation 3.2 Water Demand Projections 3.3 Modeling Output Interface/With Impact Analysis 3.4 Hydrologic Analysis Task 4.0 - Hydrologic Modeling 4.1 ResSim Model Development 4.1.1 - ResSim Modeling of Proposed Project and Alternatives 4.1.2 - Hydropower Modeling 4.1.3 - White Water Boating Recreation Modeling 4.1.4 - ResSim Modeling Technical Memorandum 4.2 CALSIM II Model Dataset Verification of Model Assumptions 4.3 CALSIM II Modeling of Proposed Project and Alternatives 4.3.1 - LAR Water Temperature Modeling 4.3.2 - Sacramento River Water Temperature Modeling 4.4 Prepare Modeling Technical Memorandum 4.5 Develop Modeling Technical Appendices Task 5.0 - Environmental Impact Report - (to be determined by CEQA Team)

ZANJERO 169 PARKSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 110 ▪ FOLSOM, CA 95762 P 916-542-7895 ▪ C 530-368-6343

Scope-of-Work and Cost Proposal July 22, 2020 Page 10

III. Schedule of Billing Rates The following billing rates are in effect for this assignment.

Name Billing Rate (Per Hour) Principal 250 Managing Scientist/Engineer 225 Senior Scientist/Engineer 200 Scientist/Engineer 190 Associate 150 GIS/Analyst 190 Administration 120

ZANJERO 169 PARKSHORE DRIVE, SUITE 110 ▪ FOLSOM, CA 95762 P 916-542-7895 ▪ C 530-368-6343

COST PROPOSAL - July 21, 2020 MODIFICATION OF WATER RIGHT PERMIT 21112: STRATEGIC SUPPORT AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SUBMITTED TO El DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT BY ZANJERO

Team Member Michael Preszler Principal Engineer Scientist/ Scientist/

Role on Project Hours Water Project Project Per Cost Per Manager Modeling Resources Coordination/

Administration Task Subtask Rate per hour $ 250 $ 250 $ 190 $ 120 $38,690 Task 1.0 - Program Kick-Off, Oversight and Coordination 1.1 Project Management and Coordinate Task Activities 32 16 48 $ 9,920 1.2 Team 3 - hour Kick-Off meeting with the District 8 8 8 2 26 $ 5,760 1.3 Up to 8 - 2 hour Coordination Meetings with the District 32 32 8 72 $ 15,040 1.4 Up to 3 - 2 hour Agency and other Stakeholder meetings 12 5 12 12 41 $ 7,970

$26,240 Task 2.0 - Strategy and Process Review 2.1 EIR Kick-Off Team Meeting 6 6 4 16 $ 3,120 2.2 Review/Comment CEQA Project Description 12 4 16 $ 3,760 2.3 CEQA Project Alternatives 2.3.1 - Review Existing and Past Alternatives 8 24 4 36 $ 7,040 2.3.2 - Develop Alternatives Screening Criteria 4 16 4 24 $ 4,520 2.3.3 - Develop Preliminary Alternatives Listing 4 16 4 24 $ 4,520 2.3.4 - Review Write-up of Alternatives 4 12 16 $ 3,280

$99,600 Task 3.0 - Development of Technical Information 3.1 Hydrology Data 32 120 152 $ 30,800 3.1.1 - Hydrology Development Documentation 24 60 24 108 $ 20,280 3.2 Water Demand Projections 16 2 4 22 $ 4,860 3.3 Modeling Output Interface/With Impact Analysis 40 50 90 $ 19,500 3.4 Hydrologic Analysis 32 80 8 120 $ 24,160

$198,320 Task 4.0 - Hydrologic Modeling 4.1 ResSim Model Development 40 16 100 156 $ 33,000 4.1.1 - ResSim Modeling of Proposed Project and Alternatives 40 100 140 $ 29,000 4.1.2 - Hydropower Modeling 8 16 40 64 $ 13,600 4.1.3 - White Water Boating Recreation Modeling 8 40 48 $ 9,600 4.1.4 - ResSim Modeling Technical Memorandum 24 40 64 $ 13,600 4.2 CALSIM II Model Dataset Verification of Model Assumptions 40 60 100 $ 21,400 4.3 CALSIM II Modeling of Proposed Project and Alternatives 40 16 100 156 $ 33,000 4.3.1 - LAR Water Temperature Modeling 8 32 40 $ 8,080 4.3.2 - Sacramento River Water Temperature Modeling 8 32 40 $ 8,080 4.4 Prepare Modeling Technical Memorandum 24 40 24 88 $ 16,480 4.5 Develop Modeling Technical Appendices 8 40 24 72 $ 12,480

$33,040 Task 5.0 - Environmental Impact Report 5.1 Administrative Draft EIR 24 16 4 44 $ 9,520 5.2 Public Draft Environmental Impact Report 4 4 2 10 $ 2,000 5.2.1 Address Draft EIR Comments 24 40 16 80 $ 15,520 5.3 Administrative Final Environmental Impact Report 8 8 4 20 $ 4,000 5.4 Final Environmental Impact Report 4 4 2 10 $ 2,000

Total Hours 562 77 1,138 166 1,943 Team Member Michael Preszler Principal Engineer Scientist/ Scientist/

Role on Project Hours Water Project Project Per Cost Per Manager Modeling Resources Coordination/

Administration Task Subtask Rate per hour $ 250 $ 250 $ 190 $ 120 Total Labor $140,500 $19,250 $216,220 $19,920 $ 395,890 Total Budget = $ 395,890