General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR A-17 Appendix A 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR Executive Summary Table 2-1
Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance after
Mitigation
IMPACT 4.14-2 Require or Result in the Construction of New Water or Wastewater Treatment Facilities or Expansion of Existing Facilities, the Construction of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Effects.
Implementation of the Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. The impact is considered less than significant.
LTS No mitigation is required LTS
IMPACT 4.14-3 Impacts Related to Construction or Expansion of Stormwater Facilities. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects.
The impact is considered less than significant.
LTS No mitigation is required LTS
IMPACT 4.14-4 Water Supply Impacts. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in having insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, nor are new or expanded entitlements needed. The impact is considered less than significant.
LTS No mitigation is required LTS
IMPACT 4.14-5 Wastewater Treatment Capacity Impacts. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. The impact is considered less than significant.
LTS No mitigation is required LTS
IMPACT 4.14-6 Solid Waste Disposal Capacity Impacts. Development under the Proposed Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to serve the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
The impact is less than significant.
LTS No mitigation is required LTS
IMPACT 4.14-7 Compliance with Federal, State, and Local Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste. Implementation of the Proposed Project would be compliant with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The impact is considered less than significant.
LTS No mitigation is required LTS
Appendix B Notice of Preparation
and Scoping Summary
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR B-1 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary B1 INTRODUCTION
In discharging its duties under Section 15021 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Woodland (as lead agency) intends to prepare a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR), consistent with Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, hereinafter the “CEQA Guidelines”), for the City of Woodland General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 (proposed project). This environmental document will supplement the City’s 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR; State Clearinghouse #2013032015 and adopted and certified on May 16th, 2017).
The proposed project would allow the City to provide utilities (i.e., potable water, wastewater or recycled water) up to one mile beyond the Urban Limit Line (ULL) to existing commercial facilities in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026. The City’s current boundaries are circumscribed by a permanent ULL established by a vote of the people in 2006. The approved initiative placed restrictions on the provision of utility services outside the ULL.
The ULL boundary and provisions of utility services outside the ULL may only be modified by another vote by the people. Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 would be subject to voter approval of an amendment to the ULL. The City is considering including a measure on the November 2026 ballot that would amend the ULL to allow the expansion of existing City utilities to commercial facilities located on parcels with a boundary that falls wholly or partially within one mile of the ULL and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026. The SEIR is being prepared to provide additional information needed to address the proposed project, in addition to that which was provided in the City’s 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR. The City received applications to extend utilities beyond the current ULL, and it is anticipated at this time that two existing commercial facilities located within unincorporated Yolo County, would make use of the utility extension, if the ballot measure passes. These two existing commercial facilities are Bayer U.S. Crop Science, LLC (located at 37437 CA-16, Woodland, CA 95695) and Clark Pacific (located at 40600 County Road 18C, Woodland, CA 95776). The ballot measure would not require either Bayer or Clark Pacific to extend utility facilities and services.
City of Woodland issued a notice of preparation (NOP) of a Draft SEIR for the proposed project on August 12, 2025 and held one virtual public scoping meeting on August 19, 2025. The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, to the Yolo County Clerk’s office, and to multiple stakeholders and Responsible Agencies. The State CEQA Guidelines provide a 30-day period for responsible and trustee agencies to respond to an NOP and must provide specific detail about the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR (Section 15082[b]). CEQA also requires lead agencies to hold at least one scoping meeting if a project is of statewide, regional, or areawide significance (Section 21083.9[a][2]).
The City of Woodland received comments in response to the NOP in the form of letters submitted via letter/email.
The purpose of this report is to document the comments received and identify topics or issues of concern raised by responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the public during the 30-day scoping period (August 12, 2025 through September 12, 2025). The City of Woodland will consider all comments received during the scoping process and address those pertaining to physical environmental issues when preparing the Draft SEIR.
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary B-2 Draft SEIR B2 SCOPING MEETING
The City of Woodland held one scoping meeting to inform interested parties about the proposed project and receive comments on the scope and content of the Draft SEIR. This meeting was held virtually from 4:00–5:50 pm on August 19, 2025. Attendance at this meeting consisted of 12 people in total, including two members of the public; representative from the City of Woodland, applicants, and consultants.
B2.1 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING COMMENTS
No public comments were made at the public scoping meeting.
B3 WRITTEN COMMENTS
This section provides a synopsis of the written comments received during the 30-day NOP public comment period. A total of seven comment letters were received within the 30-days. One comment letter was received outside of the scoping period. Table 1 provides a list of persons who submitted written comment letters on the NOP.
Table 1. List of Written Comment Letters
COMMENTER AFFILIATION DATE
Pricilla Torres-Fuentes Native American Heritage Commission 8/14/2025 Special Filings Unit California Secretary of State 8/15/2025 Christine M. Crawford, AICP Yolo County Local Agency Formation Commission 9/11/2025 Peter G. Minkel Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 9/12/2025 Robert H. Falconer Yolo County Farm Bureau 9/12/2025
Jeff Anderson Yolo County, Department of Community Services 9/12/2025 Xing Liu Federal Emergency Management Agency 9/24/2025
Table 2 provides a summary of the written comments and the sections of the Draft SEIR in which the City of Woodland will include relevant information. The comments have been paraphrased for brevity. A copy of the NOP and copies of the comment letters are included in Attachment 1 to this Scoping Summary Report.
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR B-3 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary Table 2. Synopsis of Written Comments
Affiliation Comment Synopsis Draft SEIR Section(s) that will Address the Comment Native
American
Heritage
Commission
Tribal Cultural Resources and Cultural Resources: The commenter describes provisions added to CEQA with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and provisions imposed by Senate Bill (SB)
18. The commenter further describes related tribal consultation and environmental analysis requirements. The commenter also describes the Native American Heritage Commission's recommendations for cultural resources assessments.
Section 4.5, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural
Resources
California
Secretary of
State
The commenter identifies that the proposed project is outside the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State of California.
Not Applicable.
Yolo Local
Agency
Formation
Commission
Responsible Agency: The commenter noted that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) is a Responsible Agency for the SEIR and if the project is approved by the City Council and voters, LAFCo will use the SEIR to consider approvals.
Section 2.2 Intended Use of this EIR
Yolo Local
Agency
Formation
Commission
Project Description: The commenter requested clarification of what is permitted under the extension to “commercial facilities”. The commenter noted there are at-risk water systems surrounding the City that may warrant future consolidation and these should not be precluded from the proposed project
Chapter 3, Project Description
Yolo Local
Agency
Formation
Commission
Project Description and Approvals: discuss the need for LAFCo approval under Section Government Code 56133.
Section 2.2, Intended Use of this EIR
Yolo Local
Agency
Formation
Commission
Land Use: The commenter requests demonstrated compliance with LAFCo’s Out of Agency Service Review Policies (Section 3.0)
Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, Population and
Housing
Yolo Local
Agency
Formation
Commission
Land Use and Growth Inducing: The commenter requests demonstrated compliance with LAFCo’s Agriculture Conservation Policies (Section 4.0) Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, Population and
Housing and Section 6.2, Growth-Inducing Impacts
Central
Valley
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Board
Surface and Groundwater Quality: The commenter provides information regarding the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Basin Plan and anti-degradation considerations associated with the State Water Board Anti-Degradation Policy. The commenter requests that the environmental document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality. The commenter further describes provisions related to multiple water quality permits that could be applicable to the proposed project (i.e., construction storm water general permit, Clean Water Action Section 404, Clean Water Act Section 401, Waste Discharge Requirements, Dewatering Permit, Limited Threat General NPDES Permit, NPDES Permit).
Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality and Section
4.11, Utilities
Yolo County
Farm Bureau
Agriculture, Land Use and Growth: The commenter expresses concern regarding land use and growth within the county potentially affecting agricultural resources.
Section 6.2, Growth-Inducing Impacts
Yolo County
Farm Bureau
Requirements of SEIR: The commenter requests the environmental analysis include the following: Appropriateness of preparing an SEIR
Section 2.1.1, Type of EIR
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary B-4 Draft SEIR Affiliation Comment Synopsis Draft SEIR Section(s) that will Address the Comment Yolo County Farm
Bureau
Agricultural Resources, Transportation, and Public Services: The commenter requests the environmental analysis include the following: Foreseeable impacts to agricultural resources, as well as impacts to transportation, traffic, and public services Section 4.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, and Section
2.1.4, Other Environmental Topics not Discussed in Detail in this Supplemental EIR
Yolo County Farm
Bureau
Multiple Resources: The commenter requests the environmental analysis include the following:
Other foreseeable impacts identified in CEQA Appendix G checklist Section 4.2, Air Quality; Section 4.3, Biological Resources; Section 4.4 Greenhouse Gases and Energy; Section 4.5, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources; Section 4.6, Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources; Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water
Quality; Section 4.9, Land use and Planning, Population and Housing; Section 4.10, Noise and Vibration; and Section 4.11, Utilities
Yolo County Farm
Bureau
Cumulative and Growth Inducing: The commenter requests the environmental analysis include the following: Cumulative and/or growth inducing impacts this project may cause Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations
Yolo County Farm
Bureau
Mitigation Measures: The commenter requests the environmental analysis include the following: Appropriate avoidance and/or mitigation measures Chapter 4, Impact Analysis
Yolo County Farm
Bureau
Proposed Project and Growth Inducing: The commenter requests the environmental analysis include the following: Purpose and need for the project including known or foreseeable follow- on projects that may be enabled by the project
Section 2.1.1, Type of EIR and 2.1.2, Purpose of this
Environmental Impact Report, and Section 6.2, Growth-
Inducing Impacts
Yolo County,
Department of
Community Services
Cumulative: The commenter provided background information on the land use and zoning of the Clark Pacific facility. The commenter requested that Clark Pacific Expansion Project (ZF #2023-0005) be considered in the Cumulative Impacts analysis in the Draft SEIR. This project would require County approval of a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the project site’s land use designation from AG to IN, and a Rezone to change the zoning designation of the project site from A-N to I-H. The County prepared a Project Initial Study and released a Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR for the proposed Clark Pacific Facility Expansion Project from March 28, 2025, to April 28, 2025, and held a public scoping meeting on April 10, 2025. The County is currently preparing a Draft EIR which is expected to be released later this calendar year. The City of Woodland will receive notification when the Draft EIR is released.
Section 6.1, Cumulative
Yolo County,
Department of
Community Services
Growth Inducing: The commenter requests that the City analyze growth-inducing impacts of extending sewer and water services to areas outside of the ULL, including the potential connection for future users not currently anticipated to connect.
Section 6.2, Growth-Inducing Impacts
FEMA Floodplains and Floods: The commenter requested review of the current Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The commenter provided background information on the National Flood Insurance Program flood plain building requirements.
Chapter 3, Project Description; Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality; Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary
Attachment 1
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR B1-1 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary
NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP)
FOR THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(Draft SEIR)
FOR THE City of Woodland GENERAL PLAN Amendment to Policy 2.A.1
Date: August 12, 2025
To: Responsible Agencies, Interested Parties and Organizations
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the City of Woodland General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1
Project Title: City of Woodland General Plan Amendment: Policy 2.A.1
Location: The project area encompasses the portion of the adjoining Yolo County unincorporated area that falls within a distance of one mile of the City’s voter-adopted Urban Limit Line, and existing commercial facilities that are located within one mile from the voter-adopted Urban Limit Line (see Figure 1).
In discharging its duties under Section 15021 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Woodland (as lead agency, hereinafter “City”) intends to prepare a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR), consistent with Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, hereinafter the “CEQA Guidelines”), for the City of Woodland General Plan Amendment to Policy
2.A.1 (the “proposed project,” described later in this document). This environmental document will supplement the City’s 2035 General Plan and Climate Action Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (2035 General Plan and CAP EIR; State Clearinghouse #2013032015).
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared this notice of preparation (NOP) to provide the State Clearinghouse division of the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, responsible and trustee agencies, and other interested parties with sufficient information describing the proposed project and its potential environmental effects.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 states that a lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if proposed changes meet the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and if only minor additions and changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate. Because the City has determined that a SEIR will be prepared for the proposed project, an Initial Study has not been prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15063[a]).
PROJECT OVERVIEW: The City is considering an amendment to Policy 2.A.1 in the General Plan (“the proposed project”). The amendment would allow the City to provide utilities (i.e., potable water, wastewater or recycled water) up to one mile beyond the Urban Limit Line (ULL) to existing commercial facilities in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026. The City’s current boundaries are circumscribed by a permanent ULL established by a vote of the people in 2006. The approved initiative placed restrictions on the provision of utility services outside the ULL. The ULL boundary and provisions of utility services outside the ULL may only be
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary B1-2 Draft SEIR modified by another vote by the people. Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 would be subject to voter approval of an amendment to the ULL. The City is considering including a measure on the November 2026 ballot that would amend the ULL to allow the expansion of existing City utilities to commercial facilities located on parcels with a boundary that falls wholly or partially within one mile of the ULL and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026. The SEIR will be prepared to provide additional information needed to address the proposed project, in addition to that which was provided in the City’s 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR (State Clearinghouse #2013032015 and adopted and certified on May 16th, 2017).
The City received applications to extend utilities beyond the current ULL, and it is anticipated at this time that two existing commercial facilities located within unincorporated Yolo County, would make use of the utility extension, if the ballot measure passes. These two existing commercial facilities are Bayer U.S. Crop Science, LLC (located at 37437 CA-16, Woodland, CA 95695) and Clark Pacific (located at 40600 County Road 18C, Woodland, CA 95776) (see Figures 1, 2 and 3). The ballot measure would not require either Bayer or Clark Pacific to extend utility facilities and services.
SCOPING PERIOD: As specified by the CEQA Guidelines, the NOP will be circulated for a 30-day review period. The comment period runs from August 12, 2025 to September 12, 2025 The City welcomes input on the scope of the SEIR analysis during the review period. If the City has not received either a response or a well- justified request for additional time by a responsible agency by the end of the review period, the City will presume that the responsible agency has no response (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082[b][2]). All scoping comments received during this period will be considered in determining the appropriate scope and content of the Draft SEIR.
Comments during the review period shall be directed to Erika Bumgardner, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director, Community Development Department; 300 First Street, Woodland, CA 95695.
Comments may also be submitted electronically by 4:00pm on September 12, 2025 to [email protected]. Erika may be reached by phone at (530) 661-5886.
SCOPING WEBINAR: A virtual scoping meeting for the SEIR will be conducted on Tuesday, August 19, 2025 at 4:00 PM. To register for the webinar, please visit: bit.ly/woodlandSEIR.
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR B1-3 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary Figure 1: Proposed Project Vicinity Map
County Road 16A
County Road 96B
County Road 103
County Road 104
LEGEND
Existing Woodland City Limits
Existing Woodland Urban Limit Line
1-Mile Urban Limit Line Buffer
.......... Proposed
Utility Extensions
Road 104
FEET NORTH
Basemap: ESRI Topographic Map
60755449 SACGIS007 7/25
County Road 1 1
Clark Pacific
i t-i.:
Bayer U.S. Crop
Science. LLC
Cours#
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary B1-4 Draft SEIR Figure 2: Proposed Project Clark Pacific Utility Extension Alignments LEGEND
Proposed Sewer Pipeline
Proposed Potable Water Pipeline
Proposed Water/Sewer Pipeline o 750 1,500
Existing Woodland City Limits
FEET NORTH Existing Woodland Urban Limit Line
Aerial
Image: Yolo County 2022
60755449 SAC GIS 008 8/25 1-Mile Urban Limit Line Buffer Churchill
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR B1-5 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary
Figure 3: Proposed Project Bayer U.S. Crop Science, LLC Utility Extension Alignments ....
LEGEND
.......... Proposed Sewer Pipeline
11111111 Proposed Potable Water Pipeline
| Existing Woodland City Limits
Existing Woodland Urban Limit Line
FEET NORTH
Aerial Image: Yolo County 2022
60755449 SACGIS009 7/25
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary B1-6 Draft SEIR
STATE QF CALIFORNIA . . _ .. Gavin Newsom. Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
August 14, 2025
Erika Bumgardner
City of Woodland
300 First Street
Woodland CA 95695
Re 2013032015 General Plan Amendment to Policy 2, A.1 Project Yolo County Dear Ms. Bumgardner:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code §21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, §15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code §21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 5064 subd.(a)(1) (CEQA Guidelines §15064 (a)(1)).
In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE).
CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, “tribal cultural resources" (Pub. Resources Code §21074) and provides that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.2). Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)). AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1, 2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).
Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. If your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.
The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC’s recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.
Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.
AB 52
CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
VlCE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomtaki
SECRETARY
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseno
COMMISSIONER
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luiseno Indians
COMMISSIONER
Vacant
COMMISSIONER
Vacant
ACTING EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY
Michelle Carr
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR B1-7 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary
AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:
1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project:
Within fourteen ( 1 4) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
a. A brief description of the project.
b. The lead agency contact information.
c. Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.
Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d)).
d. A “California Native American tribe’’ is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21073).
2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Davs of Receiving a Tribe's Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. [Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3. 1 (b)). a. For purposes of AB 52, "consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).
3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
c. Significance of the project's impacts on tribal cultural resources. d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code §6254 (r) and §6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (c)(1)).
6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss both of the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (b)).
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary B1-8 Draft SEIR
7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)).
8. Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (a)).
9. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b). (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (e)).
10. Examples of Mitigation Measures That, If Feasible, May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources:
a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:
i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.
ii. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
b. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. ii. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
iii. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. d. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code §21084.3 (b) ) . e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Civ. Code §815.3 (c) ). f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code §5097.991).
11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An Environmental Impact Report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (d)).
The NAHC’s PowerPoint presentation titled, “Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices” may be found online at: http://nahc.ca.qov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsultation CalEPAPDF.pdf
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR B1-9 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary SB 18
SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. (Gov. Code §65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's “Tribal Consultation Guidelines,” which can be found online at:
https://www.opr.ca.qov/docs/09 14 05 Updated Guidelines 922.pdf.
Some of SB 18’s provisions include:
1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a “Tribal Consultation List." If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (a) (2)).
2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.
3. Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Gov. Code §65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city's or county’s jurisdiction. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (b) ).
4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or
b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).
Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and "Sacred Lands File” searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/.
NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions:
1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (https://ohp.parks.ca. gov/?page_id=3033l ) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine:
a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure.
b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center.
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary B1-10 Draft SEIR
3. Contact the NAHC for:
a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project's APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.
4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: Pricilla.Torres- [email protected].
Sincerely,
Pricilla Torres-Fuentes
Cultural Resources Analyst
cc: State Clearinghouse
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR B1-11 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary
Shirley N. Weber, Ph.D. I California Secretary of Stat® Business Frograms Division [ Special Hljngs _
0,0, Bax 942870 | Sacramento, CA 94277 870 | 916,653.3984 I ww-sos. goWbuaness-prcgrems/spedal-Slings.
August 15, 2025
City of Woodland
300 First Street
Woodland, CA 95695
To Whom It May Concern:
Thank you for contacting the California Secretary of State.
The subject matter of your message does not appear to fall under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State’s office. If you have a specific question that relates to business conducted with this office, please respond accordingly specifying the details of your inquiry in your correspondence.
Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Special Filings Unit
Business Programs Division
California Secretary of State
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary B1-12 Draft SEIR
LAFCo
YOLO
LOCAL
AGENCY
FORMATION
COMMISSION
September 11, 2025
Erika Bumgardner, AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Woodland
300 First Street
Woodland, CA 95695
COMMISSION
CHAIR
BILL BIASI
Councilmember
City of Winters
OSCAR VILLEGAS
VICE CHAIR
Supervisor - 1st District
LUCAS FRERICHS
Supervbor - 2nd District
PAMELA MILLER
Public Member
GLORIA PARTIDA
Councilmember
City of Davis
Re: Notice of Preparation for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the City of Wood land General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.l
Dear Ms. Bumgardner:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation for the City of Woodland General Plan Amendment (GPA) to Policy 2.A.1 Supplemental Impact Report (SEIR). The Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) will be a Responsible Agencyforthis SEIR, and if the project is approved by the City Council and voters, LAFCo will use this SEIR to consider any approvals required for extended City services outside its jurisdictional boundary. Accordingly, LAFCo provides the following comments and observations to help improve the SEIR and ensure that it is suitable for LAFCo's needs.
In the project description, please clarify what is permitted under the extension to “commercial facilities". According to the State Water Resources Control Board SAFER Dashboard, there are at- risk water systems surrounding the City or other systems that may warrant future consolidation and LAFCo staff recommends these not be precluded by the proposed GPA language.
Government Code section 56133 requires that districts and cities obtain LAFCo approval of any new or extended services outside the agency's existing boundaries. Forthe Commission to approve any requests, the area to be served must either be (1) within the sphere of influence ("SOI") of the agency and annexation of the territory is anticipated; or (2) services are needed outside an agency's SOI to respond to an existing or impending public health or safety threat (e.g. failing well or septic system). There is an exemption under section 56133(e)(3) that potentially could be considered for Bayer Crop Science if the facility is determined by LAFCo to directly support agricultural industries. LAFCo recommends that the SEIR discuss the need for LAFCo approval under section 56133.
As such the project and SEIR analysis must comply with the Yolo LAFCo's Out of Agency Service Review policies (Section 3.0) and Agricultural Conservation Policies (Section 4.0) found at the following link HERE. These policies should be discussed in the SEIR.
Thank you again for consulting with Yolo LAFCo. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Best regards,
—7
Christine M. Crawford, AICP
ALTERNATES
SHEILA ALLEN
Supervisor - 4th District
TANIA GARCIA-CADENA
Councilmember
City of Woodland
ERIK VINK
Public Member
STAFF
CHRISTINE M. CRAWFORD, AICP
Executive Officer
JDTREBEC
Deputy Executive Officer
TERRI TUCK
Retired Annuitant
Admin istrative Specialist ll/Clerk
COUNSEL
ERIC MAY
625 Court Street Suite 107
Wood tend CA 95695
(5301 666-8048
[email protected]
www.yololafcn.org
Yoto
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR B1-13 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary
GAVIN NEWSOM
GOVERNOR
YANA GARCIA
SECRETARY FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Water Boards
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
12 September 2025
Erika Bumgardner
City of Woodland
300 First Street
Woodland, CA 95695
erika. bumgardner@cityofwoodland. gov
COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION
FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO POLICY 2.A.1, SCH#201 303201 5, YOLO COUNTY Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 12 August 2025 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1, located in Yolo County.
Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.
I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131 .38.
The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by NICHOLAS AVDIS, CHAIR | PATRICK PULUPA, EXECUTIVE OFFICER 11020 Sun Center Drive, #200, Rancho Cordova, 95670-6114 | www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley
CALIFORNIA
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary B1-14 Draft SEIR
General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 - 2 -
Yolo County
12 September 2025
the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water issues/basin plans/ Antideqradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.qov/centralvalley/water issues/basin plans/sacsjr 2018
05.pdf
In part it states:
Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.
This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives.
The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality.
II. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR B1-15 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary
General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 - 3 -
Yolo County
12 September 2025
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.sht ml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is reguired by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (91 6) 557-5250.
Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit - Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water issues/water quality certificatio n/
Waste Discharge Requirements - Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e. , “non- federal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water issues/waste to surface wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary B1-16 Draft SEIR
General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 - 4 -
Yolo County
12 September 2025
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board decisions/adopted orders/water quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004-0004.pdf
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-201 8-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.
For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.qov/board decisions/adopted orders/water quality/2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board decisions/adopted orders/waiv ers/r5-20 18-0085.pdf ....... .... '...... ' “ ............... ~ Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board decisions/adopted orders/gene ral orders/r5-201 6-0076-01 .pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.qov/centralvalley/help/permit/
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR B1-17 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary
General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 - 5- 12 September 2025 Yolo County
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or [email protected].
Peter G. Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
Nicole Williams
AECOM
nicole.williams@aecom. com
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary B1-18 Draft SEIR
PRESIDENT
Robert Falconer
15T VICE PRESIDENT
2nd VICE PRESIDENT
SECRETARY & TREASURER
Miranda Driver
P 0 Box 1556, Woodland CA 95776
(530) 662-6316 0 - (530) 662-8611 F
www .yolofarm bureau.org
Submitted Electronically
September 12, 2025
Erika Bumgardner, ATCP
Deputy Community Development Director
Community Development Department
300 Eirst Street
Woodland, CA 95695
RE: NOP of a Draft SEIR for the City of Woodland General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 Dear Ms. Bumgardner:
Farm Bureau has received the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Draft SEIR”) related to a potential General Plan Amendment to allow for the extension of utilities beyond the City’s Urban Limit Line (“ULL”) for certain existing commercial facilities within the County of Yolo’s jurisdiction. Farm Bureau understands that the City has determined to publish a DSEIR to enable this action, which supplements a pre-existing environmental impact report (“EIR”) related to the City’s 2035 General Plan.
Farm Bureau is eminently concerned with land use and growth within the County, as it may affect agricultural resources, and has long been a leading voice in advocating for the concerns of its farmer-members and agricultural resources in general. As such, we will review the Draft SEIR for this project in detail, and asks that the City explore the following CEQA-related concerns:
• Whether a SETR is appropriate for this project, and the referenced underlying EIR covers the CEQA-required substance that is not otherwise covered by the SEIR, or whether a stand- alone EIR is required for this project;
• What foreseeable impacts to agricultural resources will be enabled by the project, as well as impacts to transportation, traffic and public services will occur; • What other foreseeable impacts delineated by the CEQA Appendix G Environmental Impacts may occur, since it appears that no Initial Study will be prepared for this project; • What cumulative and/or growth-inducing impacts the project may cause; • What appropriate avoidance and/or mitigation measures exist with reference to the environmental impacts the project may cause;
ED Yolo County
Farm Bureau
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR B1-19 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary
PRESIDENT
Robert Falconer
15T VICE PRESIDENT
2nd VICE PRESIDENT
SECRETARY & TREASURER
Miranda Driver
P 0 Box 1556, Woodland CA 95776
(530) 662-6316 0 - (530) 662-8611 F
www .yolofarm bureau.org
• What the purpose and need for the project is, including known or foreseeable follow-on projects that may be enabled by the project.
Thank you for considering the foregoing, and Farm Bureau looks forward to further review of any CEQA documentation the City may put forth on this project. Tn this regard, please add Farm Bureau to the mailing list for this project.
Sincerely,
Robert H. Falconer
President, Yolo County Farm Bureau
ED Yolo County
Farm Bureau
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary B1-20 Draft SEIR
COUNTY of Adam Fieseler
Director
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES 292 W Beamer St, Woodland, CA 95695 www.YoloCounty.gov (530) 666-8775
September 12, 2025
VIA E-MAIL
Erika Bumgardner, Deputy Community Development Director City of Woodland
[email protected]
Dear Ms. Bumgardner:
The County of Yolo appreciates the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) for the proposed amendment to Policy 2.A.1 in the City's General Plan that would allow the City to provide utilities (i.e., potable water, wastewater or recycled water) up to one mile beyond the Urban Limit Line (ULL) to existing commercial facilities in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026.
The ULL boundary and provisions of utility services outside of the ULL may only be modified by a vote by the people. As such, the City is considering including a measure on the November 2026 ballot that would amend the ULL to allow the expansion of existing City utilities to commercial facilities located on parcels within a boundary that falls wholly or partially within one mile of the ULL and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft SEIR anticipates that two existing commercial facilities located in unincorporated Yolo County, Bayer U.S. Crop Science and Clark Pacific, would make use of the utility extension if the ballot measure passes. County staff are hopeful that the information provided in this letter will help improve the Draft SEIR and the decision-making process surrounding the project.
Bayer U.S. Crop Science, located at 37437 CA-16 (APNs: 025-470-035, and -038), has a general plan land use designation of Agriculture (AG) and is zoned Agricultural Intensive (A-N). The County has issued several discretionary approvals over the years to allow for agricultural research uses, including office and laboratory buildings, conference center, greenhouses, warehouses, and other agricultural structures. Most recently, the Yolo County Planning Commission approved a Use Permit Modification and adopted a Negative Declaration (SCH #1999082018) on October 8, 2009, to allow for the addition of approximately 168,000 square feet of building area to the agricultural research facility.
Clark Pacific, located at 40600 County Road 18C (APNs: 027-250-028, and -029), has a general plan land use designation of Industrial (IN) and is zoned Heavy Industrial (l-N). A small portion of the property a long the southern boundary of APN 027-250-028 and along the eastern and southern boundary of APN 027-250-029 has a general plan land use designation of Open Space (OS) and is zoned Public Open Space (POS). Yolo County has issued discretionary approvals that allowed for the establishment and operation of Clark Pacific facility. On April 1, 2008, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors certified an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (SCH #2008022124) for the Clark Pacific Project (ZF #2007-078), which included approval of a General Plan Amendment of 90 acres from AG to IN, a Rezone from Agricultural General (A-l) to Heavy Industrial (M-2), a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requesting a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, and a Development Agreement (Doc. No. 2008-0012768). Later, on July 24, 2012, the Board of Supervisors certified the YOLO
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR B1-21 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary
Clark Pacific Expansion project EIR (SCH #2011092080), which included the expansion of the Clark Pacific facility to the west, resulting in its existing size and form (ZF #2011-0029). The Clark Pacific Expansion Project included a Rezone of 58.6 acres from A-l to M-2, 20 acres from A-l to Open Space (OS), and six acres from M-2 to OS, and approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map, an amendment to the existing Development Agreement (Doc. No. 2012- 0028850), and the termination of components of the previously approved CUP. [Note: The zoning designations described in the 2008 and 2012 project approvals, above, were updated as part of the County's comprehensive zoning code update in 2014.]
County staff would like to make the City aware of a current project (ZF #2023-0005), submitted by Clark Pacific, to expand the facility on a 76.6-acre A-N zoned parcel immediately west of the existing Clark Pacific site (APN 027- 250-019). The proposed Clark Pacific expansion does not include specific development plans at this time, but the future facilities are anticipated to be similar to the existing Clark Pacific facility and developed in up to four phases.
Prior to phased development, the project site would continue to be used for agricultural purposes. Additionally, the proposed project would include associated internal roadway improvements, utility improvements, and landscaping. The project would require County approval of a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the project site's land use designation from AG to IN, and a Rezone to change the zoning designation of the project site from A-N to l-H. The County prepared a Project Initial Study and released a Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR for the proposed Clark Pacific Faiclity Expansion Project from March 28, 2025, to April 28, 2025, and held a public scoping meeting on April 10, 2025. The County is currently preparing a Draft EIR which is expected to be released later this calendar year. The City of Woodland will receive notification when the Draft EIR is released. Please consider the Clark Pacific Expansion Project (ZF #2023-0005) as part of the Cumulative Impacts analysis in the Draft SEIR.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires an EIR to evaluate the potential growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project. Specifically, an EIR must discuss ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The County requests that the City analyze growth-inducing impacts of extending sewer and water services to areas outside of the ULL, including the potential connection for future users not currently anticipated to connect.
The County is appreciative of the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the proposed City of Woodland General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A.1 and hopes that dialogue with the City continues as the project progresses.
Sincerely,
Jeff Anderson, Principal Planner
Department of Community Services
Cc (via-email only):
Adam Fieseler, Director
Stephanie Cormier, Assistant Director
Michael Webb, Chief Administrative Officer
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary B1-22 Draft SEIR
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
FEMA Region IX
1111 Broadway, Suite 1200
Oakland, CA. 94607-4052
S® FEMA
September 24, 2025
Erika Bumgardner, AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
Community Development Department
300 First Street
Woodland, California 95695
Dear Ms. Bumgardner:
This is in response to your request for comments regarding Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) for the City of Woodland General Plan Amendment to Policy 2.A, City of Woodland, Yolo County, California.
Please review the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the County of Yolo (Community Number 060423), and City of Woodland (Community Number 060426), Maps revised May 16, 2012. To locate FIRMs online, visit the Map Service Center (MSC) at https://msc.fema.gov. Please note that Woodland, Yolo County, California is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The minimum, basic NFIP floodplain management building requirements are described in Vol. 44 Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR), Sections 59 through 65.
A summary of these NFIP floodplain management building requirements are as follows:
• All buildings constructed within a riverine floodplain, (i.e., Flood Zones A, AO, AH, AE, and Al through A30 as delineated on the FIRM), must be elevated so that the lowest floor is at or above the Base Flood Elevation level in accordance with the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map.
• If the area of construction is located within a Regulatory Floodway as delineated on the FIRM, any development must not increase base flood elevation levels. The term development means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings, other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, and storage of equipment or materials. A hydrologic and hydraulic analysis must be performed prior to the start of development, and must demonstrate that the development would not cause any rise in base flood levels. No rise is permitted within regulatory floodways. www.fema.gov
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR B1-23 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Summary
Erika Bumgardner, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director
September 24, 2025
• Upon completion of any development that changes existing Special Flood Hazard Areas, the NFIP directs all participating communities to submit the appropriate hydrologic and hydraulic data to FEMA for a FIRM revision, hi accordance with 44 CFR, Section 65.3, as soon as practicable, but not later than six months after such data becomes available, a community shall notify FEMA of the changes by submitting technical data for a flood map revision. To obtain copies of FEMA’s Flood Map Revision Application Packages, please refer to the FEMA website at https://www.fema. gov/flood-maps/change- your- flood-zone/paper-application-fomis.
Please Note:
Many NFIP participating communities have adopted floodplain management building requirements which are more restrictive than the minimum federal standards described in 44 CFR. Please contact the local community’s floodplain manager for more information on local floodplain management building requirements. The Woodland floodplain manager can be reached by calling Brent Meyer, Community Development Director, at (530) 661-5947. The Yolo County floodplain manager can be reached by calling Scott Doolittle, Plan Check Engineer, at (530) 666-8609.
If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Gabriel Riggle, Emergency Management Specialist, at [email protected]. gov of the Mitigation staff.
Sincerely,
Xing Liu, Branch Chief
Floodplain Management and Insurance Branch
cc:
Brent Meyer, Community Development Director, City of Woodland, CA Scott Doolittle, Plan Check Engineer, Yolo County, CA
Alex Acosta, State of California, Department of Water Resources, North Central Region Office Anntonette Duncan, DWR NFIP Coordinator, State of California, Sacramento Headquarters Office Gabriel Riggle, Emergency Management Specialist, DHS/FEMA Region IX Jakob Crockett, Acting Environmental Regional Officer, DHS/FEMA Region IX www.fema.gov
Appendix C Draft Ballot Language
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR C-1 Draft Ballot Language
C DRAFT BALLOT LANGUAGE
Shall the City of Woodland amend the policy establishing the City’s Urban Limit Line to permit the extension of sewer, water, and recycled water facilities to serve parcels within a mile of the Urban Limit Line that have commercial facilities in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026, be adopted? C.1 DRAFT AMENDMENT TO ULL POLICY LANGUAGE IN GENERAL
PLAN
Policy 2.A.1 Urban Limit Line. A permanent Urban Limit Line (ULL) is established around Woodland to permanently circumscribe urban development and comply with provisions for agricultural lands. Public services and facilities shall not extend beyond the permanent Urban Limit Line, with the exception of sewer, water, and recycled water facilities to serve existing commercial facilities located on parcels with a boundary that falls wholly or partially within one mile of the ULL and in operation on or prior to November 3, 2026. The City shall take such administrative steps as may be required to implement Policy 2.A.1. The City shall also identify funding for implementing a permanent urban limit line, including mitigation for developing on agricultural land. The City shall continually reevaluate residential land use densities, housing policies, and zoning to determine the potential for increased residential densities for both infill sites and undeveloped land within the Urban Limit Line. The City shall continually review existing non-residential zoning to determine the potential for conversion to higher density residential uses within the permanent Urban Limit Line. The City will encourage and support appropriately located agricultural and wildlife conservation easements to support implementation of the permanent urban limit line.
This policy enacts Woodland Measure A (Ballot of June 2006), Urban Limit Line, and can only be modified by the voters.
C.2 DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS:
Should the Measure pass, and the Council approve any agreements to extend services, the physical improvements would involve the construction of one or more of the following:
Sewer Line Extension: Installation of new sewer main line, assumed to be 10 inches in diameter, approximately 5 to 8 feet deep and up to 1 mile per service connection. Location of work may be within existing public right of way and/or on private property (primarily used as agriculture). Improvement may also include the installation of force main pump(s) and force main pipelines where gravity flow is not adequate. As condition of connection to City Sewer, abandonment of existing leach field(s) would be required.
Treated Water Main Line Extension: Installation of new pressurized water main line, assumed to be eight inches in diameter, approximately 3-6 feet deep and up to 1 mile per service connection. Location of work may be within existing public right of way and/or on private property (primarily used as agriculture). Work to include appurtenances including: valves, air/vacuum valves and fire hydrants. Work to also include the installation of meters and backflow protection devices at point of connection. Improvements may also include the installation of booster pump(s) to support required pressure.
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Draft Ballot Language C-2 Draft SEIR
Recycled Water Main Line Extension: Installation of new pressurized recycled water main line, assumed to be eight inches in diameter, approximately 3-6 feet deep and up to 1 mile per service connection. Location of work may be within existing public right of way and/or on private property (primarily used as agriculture). Work to include appurtenances including: valves and air/vacuum valves. Work to also include the installation of meters.
Improvements may also include the installation of booster pump(s) to support required pressure.
C.3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC / ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
• Reduce demand on ground water would increase water availability for agriculture and other uses in vicinity reliant on ground water
• Reduce demand on ground water aquifer(s)
• Reduce potential for land subsidence
• Reduce potential for groundwater contamination from wells • Septic: reduce potential for soil and groundwater contamination and reduce land area required for leach fields and holding ponds
• Preserve employment centers (jobs) through provision of reliable water and sewer utilities • Improves drinking water quality (nitrates and hexavalent chromium) • Limited nature of properties which can potentially access the utilities mitigates growth inducement, particularly by precluding residential uses
• Consistent with State Water Resources Control Board policy to consolidate small public water and sewer systems with larger water and sewer systems
Appendix D Air Quality and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Modeling
WOODLAND ULL EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Bayer - Construction Emission Summary
Project Component
ROG
ton/year
NOX
ton/year
PM10
lb/day
PM2.5
lb/day
CO2e
MT/year
Utility Extensions 0.04 0.4 35.4 5.3 93.92
Groundwater Well Decommissioning 0.0004 0.002 0.12 0.06 1.13 Septic Tank Decommissioning 0.001 0.01 0.33 0.23 2.89
Retention Pond Decommissioning 0.0005 0.01 6.1 1.9 9.77 YSAQMD Thresholds 10 10 80 None None
Bayer Total 0.05 0.4 42.0 7.5 107.71
Clark Pacific - Construction Emission Summary
Project Component
ROG
ton/year
NOX
ton/year
PM10
lb/day
PM2.5
lb/day
CO2e
MT/year
Utility Extensions 0.03 0.3 2.6 1.1 69.33
Groundwater Well Decommissioning 0.0004 0.002 0.1 0.1 1.13 Wastewater Facility Decommissioning 0.001 0.01 0.3 0.2 2.89 YSAQMD Thresholds 10 10 80 None None
Clark Pacific Total 0.03 0.3 3.1 1.4 73.36
Project Component ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 CO2e
Bayer & Clark Pacific Total 0.08 0.7 45.1 8.90 181.07
Project Characteristics Input
Project Name Woodland ULL - Bayer
Project Location Yolo County
CEC California Electricity Demand Forecast Zone 4
Land Use Setting Suburban
Construction Start Date 5/3/2027
Utility PG&E
Land Use
Project Component CalEEMod Land Use Type Size Unit Acreage Notes Utility Extension - Sewer Linear - Road Construction 0.608 miles 1.84 Total distance of proposed sewer line is 3,210 feet.
Utility Extension - Water Linear - Road Construction 0.526 miles 1.59 Total distance of proposed water line is 2,775 feet.
Retention Pond Decommissioning Parking - Other Nonasphalt Surfaces 6.25 ksf 0.14 Measured in Google Earth Well Decommissioning Parking - Other Nonasphalt Surfaces 2.1 ksf 0.05 Measured in Google Earth Septic System Decomissioning Parking - Other Nonasphalt Surfaces 12.6 ksf 0.29 Measured in Google Earth Notes:
1. Acreage for linear land uses is based on 25 feet width of disturbance area.
2. Predominant soil type for linear land uses: sand gravel Start Date Duration (days)
Linear Activities 5/3/2027 20
Notes:
1. Duration is based on 15 days for excavation + pipelaying (based on total alignment distance and 400 feet per day), 2 days for vegetation clearing/grubbing (CalEEMod default), and 3 days of paving (CalEEMod default).
Project Component CalEEMod Phase Start Date End Date Number of Days Utility Extension Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing 5/3/2027 5/3/2027 2 Linear, Grading & Excavation 5/4/2027 5/15/2027 8
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, and Subgrade 5/16/2027 5/24/2027 7 Linear, Paving 5/25/2027 5/29/2027 3
Retention Pond Decommissioning Grading 6/1/2027 6/1/2027 1 Well Decommissioning Demolition 6/2/2027 6/4/2027 3
Septic System Decommissioning Demolition 6/7/2027 6/11/2027 5 Notes:
1.Uses default linear phases for Utility Extension work.
2. Retention pond decommissioning conservatively assumed to occur over 1 day.
3. Well and septic tank decommissioning durations based on anticipated work. Assumed to not overlap with utility extension work.
Construction Equipment:
Project Component CalEEMod Phase CalEEMod Equipment Quantity Hours per Day HP Load Factor Fuel Type Retention pond decommissioning Demolition Graders 1 8 148 0.41 Diesel Retention pond decommissioning Demolition Rollers 1 8 36 0.38 Diesel Well decommissioning Demolition Off-Highway Trucks 2 2 376 0.38 Diesel Septic tank decommissioning Demolition Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 Diesel Septic tank decommissioning Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 Diesel Septic tank decommissioning Demolition Crawler Tractors 1 8 87 0.43 Diesel Septic tank decommissioning Demolition Off-Highway Trucks 1 2 376 0.38 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Signal Boards 2 8 6 0.82 Electric Utility Extension Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Crawler Tractors 2 8 87 0.43 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Excavators 2 8 36 0.38 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Excavators 6 8 36 0.38 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Crawler Tractors 2 8 87 0.43 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Graders 2 8 148 0.41 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Rollers 4 8 36 0.38 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Signal Boards 2 8 6 0.82 Electric Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Rubber Tired Loaders 2 8 150 0.36 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Scrapers 4 8 423 0.48 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Scrapers 4 8 423 0.48 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Rough Terrain Forklifts 2 8 96 0.4 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Signal Boards 2 8 6 0.82 Electric Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Graders 2 8 148 0.41 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Plate Compactors 2 8 8 0.43 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Pumps 2 8 11 0.74 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Air Compressors 2 8 37 0.48 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Generator Sets 2 8 14 0.74 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Paving Rollers 6 8 36 0.38 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Paving Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Paving Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Paving Signal Boards 2 8 6 0.82 Electric Notes:
1. Retention pond would be filled and compacted - assumed 1 grader and 1 roller.
2. Well decommissioning assumed to require 1 concrete truck and 1 utility vehicle; included for 2 hours as off-highway trucks while onsite. Truck travel included in on-road table below.
3. Septic tank would be abandoned in placed; assumed to require -1 excavator, 1 backhoe, 1 small bulldozer, 1 large truck to pump out the system before it is abandoned in place.
4. Utility extension inputs based on CalEEMod defaults for linear project.
Dust from Material Movement:
Project Component CalEEMod Phase Volume (cubic feet)1 Material Import (cy) Retention Pond Decommissioning Grading 62500 2,315
Notes:
1. Retention pond volume = (250ft x 25ft x 10ft)
Paved Areas:
Project Component CalEEMod Land Use Type Paved Area (acres) Percent Asphalt Utility Extension 1 Linear, Road Construction 0.859 100 Retention Pond Decommissioning Parking - Other Nonasphalt Surfaces 0.000 0 Well Decommissioning Parking - Other Nonasphalt Surfaces 0.000 0 Septic System Decomissioning Parking - Other Nonasphalt Surfaces 0.000 0 Notes:
1. Conservatively assume 25 percent of total utility extension area is repaved.
Construction Vehicle Trips:
Project Component CalEEMod Phase
Worker Trips (one-way trips per
day) 1
Vendor Truck trips (one-way trips
per day)
Haul Truck Trips (one-way trips per
day)
Utility extension Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing 15 0 0 Linear, Grading & Excavation 65 2 0
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, and Subgrade 55 0 0
Linear, Paving 40 0 0
Retention Pond Decommissioning Grading 5 0 290
Well Decommissioning Demolition 5 4 0
Septic Tank Decommissioning Demolition 10 2 0
Notes:
1. Worker trips based on 2.5 one-way worker trips per piece of equipment (CalEEMod User Guide).
2. For retention pond, well, and septic decommissioning related activities, assume worker vehicles and haul trucks travel on 100% paved roads - retention bond is accessible through Bayer facility which is entirely paved.
3. For linear utility extension, assumes worker vehicle travel on paved roads is based on the fraction of the maximum alignment distance (0.6 miles for sewer main) of the total worker trip length. See below.
4. Trip distances based on CalEEMod defaults for one-way trips.
Paved Area:
Utility Alignment Length (miles) Paved distance (miles) Percent Paved Sewer Pipe Installation 0.304 13.996 97.9%
Water Pipe Installation 0.263 14.037 98.2%
Worker 14.3
Vendor 8.8
Hauling 20
Measures
Water unpaved roads (2x daily)
Water exposed area (2x daily)
Conversion Factors:
1 acre = 43560 sqft
1 mile = 5280 ft
Woodland ULL Project Inputs - Clark Pacific
Project Characteristics Input
Project Name Woodland ULL - Bayer
Project Location Yolo County
CEC California Electricity Demand Forecast Zone 4
Land Use Setting Suburban
Construction Start Date 5/3/2027
Utility PG&E
Land Use:
Project Component CalEEMod Land Use Type Size Unit Acreage Notes Utility Extension - Sewer + Water Linear - Road Construction 1.645 miles 4.98 Total distance of proposed water+sewer main is 8,685 feet.
Well and Septic Decommissioning Parking - User Defined Parking 1 - 0.00 Acreage does not affect construction inputs Notes:
1. Acreage for linear land uses is based on 25 feet width of disturbance area.
2. Predominant soil type for linear uses: sand gravel
Construction Duration:
Activity Start Date Duration (days)
Linear Activities 5/3/2027 29
Notes:
1. Duration is based on 22 days for excavation + pipelaying (based on total alignment distance and 400 feet per day), 3 days for vegetation clearing/grubbing (CalEEMod default) and 4 days of paving (CalEEMod default).
Construction Phasing:
Project Component CalEEMod Phase Start Date End Date Number of Days Utility Extension Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing 5/3/2027 5/7/2027 3 Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation 5/8/2027 5/24/2027 12 Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, and Subgrade 5/25/2027 6/8/2027 10 Utility Extension Linear, Paving 6/9/2027 6/14/2027 4
Well Decommissioning Demolition 6/29/2027 7/1/2027 3
Septic System Decommissioning Demolition 7/5/2027 7/9/2027 5 Notes:
1.Uses default linear phases for Utility Extension work.
2. Well and septic tank decommissioning durations based on anticipated work. Assumed to not overlap with utility extension work.
Construction Equipment:
Project Component CalEEMod Phase CalEEMod Equipment Quantity Hours per Day HP Load Factor Fuel Type Well decommissioning Demolition Off-Highway Trucks 2 2 376 0.38 Diesel Septic decommissioning Demolition Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 Diesel Septic decommissioning Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 Diesel Septic decommissioning Demolition Crawler Tractors 1 8 87 0.43 Diesel Septic decommissioning Demolition Off-Highway Trucks 1 2 376 0.38 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Signal Boards 3 8 6 0.82 Electric Utility Extension Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Crawler Tractors 1 8 87 0.43 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Excavators 1 8 36 0.38 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Excavators 3 8 36 0.38 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Crawler Tractors 1 8 87 0.43 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Graders 1 8 148 0.41 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Signal Boards 3 8 6 0.82 Electric Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8 150 0.36 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Grading & Excavation Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Scrapers 2 8 423 0.48 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 8 96 0.4 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Signal Boards 3 8 6 0.82 Electric Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Plate Compactors 1 8 8 0.43 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Pumps 1 8 11 0.74 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Graders 1 8 148 0.41 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Air Compressors 1 8 37 0.48 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Paving Rollers 3 8 36 0.38 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Paving Paving Equipment 1 8 89 0.36 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Paving Pavers 1 8 81 0.42 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 84 0.37 Diesel Utility Extension Linear, Paving Signal Boards 3 8 6 0.82 Electric Notes:
1. Well decommissioning assumed to require 1 concrete truck and 1 utility vehicle; included for 2 hours as off-highway trucks while onsite. Truck travel included in on-road table below.
2. Septic tank would be abandoned in placed; assumed to require -1 excavator, 1 backhoe, 1 small bulldozer, 1 large truck to pump out the system before it is abandoned in place.
3. Utility extension inputs based on CalEEMod defaults for linear project.
Paved Areas:
Project Component CalEEMod Land Use Type Paved Area (acres) Percent Asphalt Utility extension Linear, Road Construction 1.246 100
Notes:
1. Conservatively assume 25% of total area is repaved.
Construction Vehicle Trips:
Project Component CalEEMod Phase Worker Trips (one-way trips per day) Vendor Truck trips (one-way trips per day) Haul Truck Trips (one-way trips per day) Utility extension Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing 13 0 0 Linear, Grading & Excavation 38 1 0
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, and Subgrade 33 0 0
Linear, Paving 25 0 0
Well Decommissioning Demolition 5 4 0
Septic Tank Decommissioning Demolition 10 2 0
Notes:
1. Worker trips based on 2.5 one-way worker trips per piece of equipment (CalEEMod User Guide).
2. Utility extension alignment and facility areas are paved.
3. Trip distances based on CalEEMod defaults for one-way trips.
Woodland ULL - Energy Calculations
Bayer Phase Source Fuel Type MT CO2 lb CO2/gallon Gallons Groundwater Well Decommissioning Well decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Off-Road Equipment Diesel 0.91 22.45 89.05 Groundwater Well Decommissioning Well decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Worker Gasoline 0.07 18.73 7.98 Groundwater Well Decommissioning Well decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Vendor Diesel 0.14 22.45 14.23 Septic Tank Decommissioning Septic tank decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Off-Road Equipment Diesel 2.53 22.45 248.11 Septic Tank Decommissioning Septic tank decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Worker Gasoline 0.23 18.73 26.60 Septic Tank Decommissioning Septic tank decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Vendor Diesel 0.12 22.45 11.86 Retention Pond Decommissioning Retention pond decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Off-Road Equipment Diesel 0.32 22.45 31.63 Retention Pond Decommissioning Retention pond decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Worker Gasoline 0.02 18.73 2.66 Retention Pond Decommissioning Retention pond decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Hauling Diesel 8.98 22.45 881.14 Utility Extensions Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2027) - Unmitigated Off-Road Equipment Diesel 0.89 22.45 87.42 Utility Extensions Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2027) - Unmitigated Worker Gasoline 0.14 18.73 15.96 Utility Extensions Linear, Grading & Excavation (2027) - Unmitigated Off-Road Equipment Diesel 47.14 22.45 4627.54 Utility Extensions Linear, Grading & Excavation (2027) - Unmitigated Worker Gasoline 2.35 18.73 276.63 Utility Extensions Linear, Grading & Excavation (2027) - Unmitigated Vendor Diesel 0.19 22.45 18.98 Utility Extensions Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated Off-Road Equipment Diesel 36.14 22.45 3548.43 Utility Extensions Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated Worker Gasoline 1.74 18.73 204.81 Utility Extensions Linear, Paving (2027) - Unmitigated Off-Road Equipment Diesel 4.41 22.45 432.71 Utility Extensions Linear, Paving (2027) - Unmitigated Worker Gasoline 0.54 18.73 63.84 Total Total Total - Onsite Diesel Diesel 92 22.45 9065
Total Total Total - Onsite Diesel Diesel 9 22.45 926
Total Total Total - Gasoline Gasoline 5 18.73 598
Sources:
a Modeled by AECOM in 2025.
b U.S. Energy Information Administration released September 2024(https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php)
Clark Pacific Phase Source Fuel Type MT CO2 lb CO2/gallon Gallons Groundwater Well Decommissioning Well decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Off-Road Equipment Diesel 0.907019868 22.45 89.05 Groundwater Well Decommissioning Well decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Worker Gasoline 0.067812304 18.73 7.98 Groundwater Well Decommissioning Well decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Vendor Diesel 0.144985607 22.45 14.23 Septic Tank Decommissioning Septic decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Off-Road Equipment Diesel 2.527304265 22.45 248.11 Septic Tank Decommissioning Septic decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Worker Gasoline 0.226041014 18.73 26.60 Septic Tank Decommissioning Septic decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Vendor Diesel 0.120821339 22.45 11.86 Utility Extensions Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2027) - Unmitigated Off-Road Equipment Diesel 0.667819442 22.45 65.56 Utility Extensions Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2027) - Unmitigated Worker Gasoline 0.169530761 18.73 19.95 Utility Extensions Linear, Grading & Excavation (2027) - Unmitigated Off-Road Equipment Diesel 35.35216985 22.45 3470.65 Utility Extensions Linear, Grading & Excavation (2027) - Unmitigated Worker Gasoline 2.034369127 18.73 239.39 Utility Extensions Linear, Grading & Excavation (2027) - Unmitigated Vendor Diesel 0.144985607 22.45 14.23 Utility Extensions Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated Off-Road Equipment Diesel 25.81743397 22.45 2534.59 Utility Extensions Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated Worker Gasoline 1.469266592 18.73 172.89 Utility Extensions Linear, Paving (2027) - Unmitigated Off-Road Equipment Diesel 2.938367733 22.45 288.47 Utility Extensions Linear, Paving (2027) - Unmitigated Worker Gasoline 0.452082028 18.73 53.20 Total Total Total - Onsite Diesel Diesel 68 22.45 6696
Total Total Total - Onsite Diesel Diesel 0.4 22.45 40
Total Total Total - Gasoline Gasoline 4 18.73 520
Sources:
a Modeled by AECOM in 2025.
b U.S. Energy Information Administration released September 2024(https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php)
Woodland ULL - Bayer Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Well decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated
3.3. Septic tank decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated
3.5. Retention pond decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated
3.7. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2027) - Unmitigated
3.9. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2027) - Unmitigated
3.11. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated
3.13. Linear, Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
2 / 34
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
3 / 34
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
4 / 34
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Woodland ULL - Bayer
Construction Start Date 5/3/2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.60
Precipitation (days) 26.8
Location 38.67420207055477, -121.81075149404109
County Y olo
City Unincorporated
Air District Y olo/Solano AQMD
Air Basin Sacramento Valley
TAZ 328
EDFZ 4
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.30
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Road Construction 0.61 Mile 1.84 0.00 0.00 — — Sewer pipe Road Construction 0.53 Mile 1.59 0.00 0.00 — — Water pipe 5 / 34
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
6.25 1000sqft 0.14 0.00 0.00 — — Retention pond
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
2.10 1000sqft 0.05 0.00 0.00 — — Well
decommissioning
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
12.6 1000sqft 0.29 0.00 0.00 — — Septic tank
decomissioning
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.02 5.93 47.2 61.4 0.17 1.97 33.4 35.4 1.82 3.44 5.26 — 24,225 24,225 1.18 3.19 40.7 25,247 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.30 0.25 2.10 2.63 0.01 0.08 1.36 1.44 0.08 0.14 0.22 — 646 646 0.03 0.01 0.10 651 Annual
(Max)
— — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.06 0.05 0.38 0.48 < 0.005 0.02 0.25 0.26 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 107 107 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 108
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 6 / 34
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 7.02 5.93 47.2 61.4 0.17 1.97 33.4 35.4 1.82 3.44 5.26 — 24,225 24,225 1.18 3.19 40.7 25,247 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.30 0.25 2.10 2.63 0.01 0.08 1.36 1.44 0.08 0.14 0.22 — 646 646 0.03 0.01 0.10 651 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.06 0.05 0.38 0.48 < 0.005 0.02 0.25 0.26 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 107 107 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 108
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Well decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.26 0.22 1.22 1.49 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 667 667 0.03 0.01 — 669 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
7 / 34
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.48 5.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.50 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.91 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 54.5 54.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 55.2 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 107 107 < 0.005 0.02 0.24 112 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.41 0.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.92 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 / 34
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Septic tank decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 9 / 34
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.65 0.55 4.59 6.11 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,114 1,114 0.05 0.01 — 1,118 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.3 15.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.3 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
Equipme
< 0.005
t
< 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.53 2.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.54 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 109 109 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 110 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.3 53.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 55.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.37 1.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.38 Vendor < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.76 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.23 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.23 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Retention pond decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
10 / 34
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.53 0.44 3.31 4.64 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 710 710 0.03 0.01 — 713 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.28 0.28 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.95 1.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.95 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.32 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.32 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — 11 / 34
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 54.5 54.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 55.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 1.48 0.45 23.9 8.44 0.13 0.38 5.25 5.63 0.26 1.47 1.73 — 19,784 19,784 1.01 3.15 39.1 20,786 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 54.2 54.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 56.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.98 8.98 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.42
3.7. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
12 / 34
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.80 0.67 5.99 6.90 0.01 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 982 982 0.04 0.01 — 985 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.41 0.41 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.38 5.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.40 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.89 0.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.89 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
13 / 34
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.79 0.00 0.00 6.78 6.78 0.00 0.70 0.70 — 163 163 < 0.005 0.01 0.54 166 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.82 0.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.83 Vendor
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
6.76 5.68 47.0 58.0 0.12 1.97 — 1.97 1.81 — 1.81 — 12,990 12,990 0.53 0.11 — 13,034 14 / 34
Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 2.48 2.48 — 0.27 0.27 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.15 0.12 1.03 1.27 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 285 285 0.01 < 0.005 — 286 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.03 0.02 0.19 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 47.1 47.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 47.3 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.26 0.25 0.16 3.43 0.00 0.00 29.4 29.4 0.00 3.02 3.02 — 708 708 0.01 0.02 2.34 718 15 / 34
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.57 1.57 < 0.005 0.16 0.16 — 53.3 53.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 55.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 14.2 14.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.17 1.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.22 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 2.35 2.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.38 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.20 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
5.53 4.63 39.6 46.4 0.11 1.53 — 1.53 1.40 — 1.40 — 11,384 11,384 0.46 0.09 — 11,423 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 2.07 2.07 — 0.22 0.22 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16 / 34
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.76 0.89 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 218 218 0.01 < 0.005 — 219 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.04 0.04 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.02 0.14 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 36.1 36.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.3 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 0.21 0.14 2.90 0.00 0.00 24.9 24.9 0.00 2.55 2.55 — 599 599 0.01 0.02 1.98 608 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
17 / 34
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 10.5 10.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 10.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 1.74 1.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.76 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Linear, Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
1.95 1.64 14.4 21.6 0.03 0.56 — 0.56 0.51 — 0.51 — 3,239 3,239 0.13 0.03 — 3,250 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.01 0.12 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.6 26.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.7 18 / 34
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.41 4.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.42 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.15 0.10 2.11 0.00 0.00 18.1 18.1 0.00 1.86 1.86 — 436 436 0.01 0.02 1.44 442 Vendor
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 3.28 3.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.32 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.54 0.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.55 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
19 / 34
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
—
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 20 / 34
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
21 / 34
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Well decommissioning Demolition 6/2/2027 6/4/2027 5.00 3.00 — Septic tank
decommissioning
Demolition 6/7/2027 6/11/2027 5.00 5.00 —
Retention pond
decommissioning
Grading 6/1/2027 6/1/2027 5.00 1.00 —
Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
Linear
, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
5/3/2027 5/5/2027 5.00 2.00 —
Linear
, Grading &
Excav
ation
Linear, Grading &
Excav
ation
5/6/2027 5/17/2027 5.00 8.00 —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
& Sub-Grade
Linear
, Drainage, Utilities,
& Sub-Grade
5/18/2027 5/27/2027 5.00 7.00 —
Linear
, Paving Linear, Paving 5/28/2027 6/1/2027 5.00 3.00 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Well decommissioning Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 2.00 2.00 376 0.38 Septic tank
decommissioning
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Septic tank
decommissioning
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
22 / 34
Septic tank
decommissioning
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
Septic tank
decommissioning
Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38
Retention pond
decommissioning
Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Retention pond
decommissioning
Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Signal Boards Electric Average 2.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Excavators Diesel Average 6.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Graders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 148 0.41
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rollers Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Signal Boards Electric Average 2.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 150 0.36
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Scrapers Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 423 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Scrapers Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 423 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00
96.0 0.40
23 / 34
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Gr
ade
Signal Boards Electric Average 2.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Gr
ade
Graders Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 148 0.41
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Gr
ade
Plate Compactors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Gr
ade
Pumps Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Gr
ade
Air Compressors Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 37.0 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Gr
ade
Generator Sets Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Linear, Paving Rollers Diesel Average 6.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Linear, Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Linear, Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Linear, Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Paving Signal Boards Electric Average 2.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing — — — —
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Worker 15.0 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Vendor 0.00 8.80 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Grading & Excavation — — — —
24 / 34
Linear, Grading & Excavation Worker 65.0 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grading & Excavation Vendor 2.00 8.80 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grading & Excavation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Grading & Excavation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
— — — —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Worker 55.0 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Vendor 0.00 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Paving — — — —
Linear, Paving Worker 40.0 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Paving Vendor 0.00 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Retention pond decommissioning — — — —
Retention pond decommissioning Worker 5.00 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Retention pond decommissioning Vendor — 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Retention pond decommissioning Hauling 290 20.0 HHDT
Retention pond decommissioning Onsite truck — — HHDT
Well decommissioning — — — —
Well decommissioning Worker 5.00 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Well decommissioning Vendor 4.00 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Well decommissioning Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Well decommissioning Onsite truck — — HHDT
Septic tank decommissioning — — — —
25 / 34
Septic tank decommissioning Worker 10.0 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Septic tank decommissioning Vendor 2.00 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Septic tank decommissioning Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Septic tank decommissioning Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Well decommissioning 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Septic tank decommissioning 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Retention pond
decommissioning
2,315 — 0.50 0.00 —
Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
— — 3.43 0.00 —
Linear, Grading & Excavation — — 3.43 0.00 —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
— — 3.43 0.00 —
26 / 34
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Road Construction 0.46 100%
Road Construction 0.40 100%
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0%
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0%
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2027 235 204 0.03 < 0.005
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
27 / 34
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 28.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.05 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 5 0 0 N/A
28 / 34
Extreme Precipitation 2 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 5 1 1 4
Extreme Precipitation 2 1 1 3
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
29 / 34
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 52.0
AQ-PM 23.9
AQ-DPM 17.2
Drinking Water 56.4
Lead Risk Housing 19.4
Pesticides 85.9
Toxic Releases 70.1
Traffic 11.2
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 23.5
Groundwater 69.7
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 76.4
Impaired Water Bodies 83.0
Solid Waste 63.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 60.1
Cardio-vascular 70.0
Low Birth Weights 36.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 54.8
Housing 12.3
Linguistic 46.5
30 / 34
Poverty 28.2
Unemployment 30.9
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 64.91723341
Employed 14.74400103
Median HI 72.30848197
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 58.84768382
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 63.55703837
Transportation —
Auto Access 62.47914795
Active commuting 59.36096497
Social —
2-parent households 62.33799564
Voting 67.66328757
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 88.48967022
Park access 26.52380341
Retail density 6.634158861
Supermarket access 18.96573848
Tree canopy 8.841267804
Housing —
Homeownership 82.38162453
31 / 34
Housing habitability 91.76183755
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 66.85486975 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 94.49505967
Uncrowded housing 56.87155139
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 68.95932247
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 44.3
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 96.8
Cognitively Disabled 22.1
Physically Disabled 33.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 33.8
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 47.2
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
32 / 34
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 41.8
Elderly 65.5
English Speaking 67.8
Foreign-born 34.1
Outdoor Workers 53.4
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 89.3
Traffic Density 13.3
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 28.8
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 70.5
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 55.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 61.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
33 / 34
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Paving Assume 25% of alignment is repaved. No paving for decommissioning activities.
Construction: Construction Phases Linear excavation+utilities is 15 days based on alignment length and default durations for grubbing and paving.
Construction: Trips and VMT Haul trucks to fill retention pond based on fill volume and 16 cy per truck.
Construction: On-Road Fugitive Dust Linear worker paved distance updated based on alignment length. For decommissioning activities, assume worker and haul travel is on 100% paved roads (areas are accessible onsite which is paved).
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Defaults for decommissioning activities updated based on limited scope of work.
Construction: Dust From Material Movement —
34 / 34
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Well decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated
3.3. Septic decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated
3.5. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2027) - Unmitigated
3.7. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2027) - Unmitigated
3.9. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated
3.11. Linear, Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
1 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 2 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
3 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
4 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific
Construction Start Date 5/3/2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.60
Precipitation (days) 26.8
Location 38.70482532012596, -121.7485797752733
County Y olo
City Unincorporated
Air District Y olo/Solano AQMD
Air Basin Sacramento Valley
TAZ 326
EDFZ 4
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.30
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Road Construction 1.65 Mile 4.98 0.00 0.00 — — Utility extension User Defined
Parking
1.00 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — Well and septic decommissioning
5 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.53 2.99 23.6 31.0 0.06 0.99 1.63 2.61 0.91 0.22 1.13 — 6,932 6,932 0.27 0.07 1.41 6,961 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.22 0.19 1.50 1.94 < 0.005 0.06 0.10 0.16 0.06 0.01 0.07 — 441 441 0.02 < 0.005 0.04 443 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.04 0.03 0.27 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 —
73.1 73.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 73.4
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 3.53 2.99 23.6 31.0 0.06 0.99 1.63 2.61 0.91 0.22 1.13 — 6,932 6,932 0.27 0.07 1.41 6,961 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
6 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 2027 0.22 0.19 1.50 1.94 < 0.005 0.06 0.10 0.16 0.06 0.01 0.07 — 441 441 0.02 < 0.005 0.04 443 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.04 0.03 0.27 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 73.1 73.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 73.4
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Well decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 7 / 31
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.26 0.22 1.22 1.49 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 667 667 0.03 0.01 — 669 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.48 5.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.50 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.91 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 54.5 54.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 55.2 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 107 107 < 0.005 0.02 0.24 112 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.41 0.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42 Vendor < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.92 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Septic decommissioning (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 8 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.65 0.55 4.59 6.11 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,114 1,114 0.05 0.01 — 1,118 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.06 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.3 15.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.3 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.53 2.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.54 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
9 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 109 109 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 110 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.3 53.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 55.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.37 1.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.38 Vendor
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.76 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.23 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.23 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.40 0.34 3.00 3.45 < 0.005 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 491 491 0.02 < 0.005 — 492 10 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.21 0.21 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.03 4.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.05 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.67 0.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.67 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 136 136 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.45 138 11 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.02 1.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.04 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
3.38 2.84 23.5 29.0 0.06 0.99 — 0.99 0.91 — 0.91 — 6,495 6,495 0.26 0.05 — 6,517 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 1.24 1.24 — 0.13 0.13 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.11 0.09 0.77 0.95 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 214 214 0.01 < 0.005 — 214 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.04 0.04 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.02 0.02 0.14 0.17 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 35.4 35.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 35.5 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.15 0.15 0.09 1.98 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 409 409 0.01 0.01 1.35 414 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.6 26.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 27.9 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
—
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
13 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.3 12.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 12.5 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.88 0.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.92 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.03 2.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.06 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.14 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
2.76 2.32 19.8 23.2 0.05 0.76 — 0.76 0.70 — 0.70 — 5,692 5,692 0.23 0.05 — 5,711 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 1.03 1.03 — 0.11 0.11 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
14 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Off-Roa
d
0.08 0.06 0.54 0.64 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 156 156 0.01 < 0.005 — 156 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.10 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 25.8 25.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25.9 Dust
From
Material
Movemen
—
t
— — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.13 0.08 1.72 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 354 354 0.01 0.01 1.17 359 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.87 8.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
15 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.47 1.47 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.49 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Linear, Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.97 0.82 7.18 10.8 0.01 0.28 — 0.28 0.26 — 0.26 — 1,619 1,619 0.07 0.01 — 1,625 Onsite
truc
k
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
0.01 0.01 0.08 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.7 17.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.8 Onsite
truc
k
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.94 2.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.95 16 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Onsite
truck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.10 0.10 0.06 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 272 272 < 0.005 0.01 0.90 276 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.73 2.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.77 Vendor 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.45 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.46 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criter
ia Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 17 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
18 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
19 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Well decommissioning Demolition 6/29/2027 7/1/2027 5.00 3.00 — Septic decommissioning Demolition 7/5/2027 7/9/2027 5.00 5.00 — Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
5/3/2027 5/7/2027 5.00 3.00 —
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
5/8/2027 5/24/2027 5.00 12.0 —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
& Sub-Grade
Linear, Drainage, Utilities,
& Sub-Grade
5/25/2027 6/8/2027 5.00 10.0 —
Linear, Paving Linear, Paving 6/9/2027 6/14/2027 5.00 4.00 —
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Well decommissioning Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 2.00 2.00 376 0.38 Septic
decommissioning
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Septic
decommissioning
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Septic
decommissioning
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
Septic
decommissioning
Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 376 0.38
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Signal Boards Electric Average 3.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
20 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 87.0 0.43
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Signal Boards Electric Average 3.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Rubber Tired Loaders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 150 0.36
Linear, Grading &
Excavation
Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Rough Terrain Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 96.0 0.40 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Signal Boards Electric Average 3.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Plate Compactors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Pumps Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 11.0 0.74
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00
37.0 0.48
21 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Linear, Drainage,
Utilities, & Sub-Grade
Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74
Linear, Paving Rollers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Linear, Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Linear, Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Linear, Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Paving Signal Boards Electric Average 3.00 8.00 6.00 0.82
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing — — — —
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Worker 12.5 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Vendor 0.00 8.80 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Grading & Excavation — — — —
Linear, Grading & Excavation Worker 37.5 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grading & Excavation Vendor 1.00 8.80 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grading & Excavation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Grading & Excavation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
— — — —
Linear
, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
W orker 32.5 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
V
endor 0.00 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
22 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
Onsite tr
uck — — HHDT
Linear, Paving — — — —
Linear, Paving Worker 25.0 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Linear, Paving Vendor 0.00 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Linear, Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Linear, Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Well decommissioning — — — —
Well decommissioning Worker 5.00 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Well decommissioning Vendor 4.00 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Well decommissioning Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Well decommissioning Onsite truck — — HHDT
Septic decommissioning — — — —
Septic decommissioning Worker 10.0 14.3 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Septic decommissioning Vendor 2.00 8.80 HHDT,MHDT
Septic decommissioning Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Septic decommissioning Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
23 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Well decommissioning 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Septic decommissioning 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
— — 4.98 0.00 —
Linear, Grading & Excavation — — 4.98 0.00 —
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Grade
— — 4.98 0.00 —
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Road Construction 1.25 100%
User Defined Parking 0.00 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2027 352 204 0.03 < 0.005
5.18. Vegetation
24 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 27.4 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.60 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 25 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 4 1 1 4
Extreme Precipitation 1 1 1 2
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought 1 1 1 2
26 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. 27 / 31
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 52.0
AQ-PM 23.9
AQ-DPM 17.2
Drinking Water 56.4
Lead Risk Housing 19.4
Pesticides 85.9
Toxic Releases 70.1
Traffic 11.2
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 23.5
Groundwater 69.7
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 76.4
Impaired Water Bodies 83.0
Solid Waste 63.7
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Sensitive Population —
Asthma 60.1
Cardio-vascular 70.0
Low Birth Weights 36.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 54.8
Housing 12.3
Linguistic 46.5
Poverty 28.2
Unemployment 30.9
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 64.91723341
Employed 14.74400103
Median HI 72.30848197
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 58.84768382
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 63.55703837
Transportation —
Auto Access 62.47914795
Active commuting 59.36096497
Social —
2-parent households 62.33799564
Voting 67.66328757
28 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 88.48967022
Park access 26.52380341
Retail density 6.634158861
Supermarket access 18.96573848
Tree canopy 8.841267804
Housing —
Homeownership 82.38162453
Housing habitability 91.76183755
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 66.85486975 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 94.49505967
Uncrowded housing 56.87155139
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 68.95932247
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 44.3
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 96.8
Cognitively Disabled 22.1
Physically Disabled 33.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 33.8
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
29 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 47.2
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 41.8
Elderly 65.5
English Speaking 67.8
Foreign-born 34.1
Outdoor Workers 53.4
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 89.3
Traffic Density 13.3
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 28.8
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 70.5
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 55.0 30 / 31
Woodland ULL - Clark Pacific Detailed Report, 8/27/2025 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 61.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Characteristics: Project Details —
Construction: Construction Phases Linear duration is based on 22 days for excavation + pipelaying (based on total alignment distance and 400 feet per day), 3 days for vegetation clearing/grubbing (CalEEMod default) and 4 days of paving (CalEEMod default).
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Decommissioning equipment based on minimal scope of work.
Construction: On-Road Fugitive Dust Alignment and access roads all paved.
Construction: Paving Assume 25% of utility extension alignment area is repaved. 31 / 31
Appendix E Biological Reconnaissance
Survey Results
AECOM
2020 L Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95811
T +1-916.414.5800;
F+ 1-916.414.5850
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 1 Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results
BIOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY RESULTS FOR THE
BAYER AND CLARK PACIFIC PIPELINE ALIGNMENTS IN
WOODLAND, CALIFORNIA
The City of Woodland (City) is proposing an amendment to Policy 2.A.1 of the 2035 General Plan where the City’s ultimate boundaries are limited to the Urban Limit Line (ULL) and restrictions on the provision of services exist outside of the ULL. The amendment (proposed project) would permit the extension of sewer, water, and recycled water utility facilities to serve existing commercial facilities up to one mile beyond the existing ULL. It is anticipated at this time that two existing businesses, Bayer U.S. Crop Science, LLC (Bayer) and Clark Pacific are seeking participation in the extension of the City’s utility services of the proposed project.
This memorandum details the methods and results of a biological reconnaissance survey conducted for the proposed Bayer and Clark Pacific utility alignments, including a 500-foot survey buffer, to support environmental review of the proposed project. (Figure 1 and 2).
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of Woodland is located in Yolo County, approximately 15 miles northwest of Sacramento and 8 miles north of Davis, within the lower Sacramento Valley of California’s Central Valley region. The City occupies the flat alluvial plain of the Sacramento River watershed, with gently sloping topography ranging from approximately 50 to 60 feet above mean sea level. The surrounding landscape is characterized by extensive agricultural production, irrigation canals, and rural residences, with urban development concentrated within and adjacent to the ULL. Native vegetation within the Woodland area has been largely replaced by agricultural and urban land uses, leaving limited remnants of riparian woodland and annual grassland along canals, roadways, and drainage corridors.
UTILITY ALIGNMENT LOCATION
Bayer and Clark Pacific facilities are within one mile of the existing ULL where land use is dominated by agriculture.
The Bayer facility is located to the west of Woodland on Highway 16 and County Road 98 (37437 CA-16, Woodland, CA 95695; APN: 025-470-038-000). The proposed Bayer utility alignments would span approximately 0.5 miles from Road 98 and W Lincoln Avenue west across an existing agricultural field, owned and maintained by Bayer. Different agricultural crops are rotated in the existing agricultural field depending on the season and need; at the time of the survey, the field was planted in hay for ultimate use by neighboring farms and was bordered by alfalfa plants. The proposed pipelines would intersect at the existing well and the City’s main line along County Road 98.
The Clark Pacific facility is located on the north side of Road 18C (located at 40600 County Road 18C, Woodland, CA 95776; APN: 027-250-028-000). The proposed Clark Pacific utility alignments would extend north from the intersection of Churchill Downs Road and Road 101 to the intersection of Road 18C and Road 101 and turn westward along Road 18C until it reached Clark Pacific.
AECOM
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results 2 Draft SEIR
METHODOLOGY
DESKTOP ANALYSIS
Prior to initiating the field survey, a desktop analysis was performed. This analysis included queries of California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS 2025a), California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, CDFW 2025a), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation project planning tool (USFWS 2025a), and the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (USFWS 2025b) for records of special-status species or previously documented within or adjacent to the proposed project. The CNPS query included the following U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles: Woodland and Grays Bend. The CNDDB query included the following U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles Davis, Eldorado Bend, Grays Bend, Knights Landing, Madison, Merritt, Winters, Woodland, and Zamora.
FIELD SURVEY
AECOM biologist Gabi Patterson and AECOM Archeologist Zenzi Moore-Dawes conducted reconnaissance level biological resources surveys across the two utility alignments on July 30, 2025. The Clark Pacific facility was surveyed on foot and the Bayer facility was initially assessed by driving the survey area with an escort.
Afterward, noted habitat potentially suitable for state- and federally listed plant and wildlife species were surveyed on foot. Private property and otherwise inaccessible portions of the 500-foot buffer were scanned to the extent possible with binoculars. Following completion of the field reconnaissance, all biological observations, habitat notes, and site boundary information recorded during the survey were later digitized and mapped using ArcGIS Pro (ESRI, 2025).
SURVEY RESULTS
The proposed Bayer alignment is located primarily within an agricultural field. Different agricultural crops are rotated in the existing agricultural field depending on the season and need. This field is typically used to grow vegetable or cover crops and hay on a rotational basis and is harvested or tilled annually. At the time of the survey, the field was planted in hay for ultimate use by neighboring farms and was bordered by alfalfa plants.
The proposed alignment supports limited habitat for wildlife, given the regular harvest and rotation of crops.
Numerous mature trees within and surrounding the alignment and existing Bayer facility offer potential nesting habitat for raptors, and a pair of Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) were observed soaring over the northern portion of the agricultural field during the survey. The facility’s retention pond supports a narrow riparian band that could provide habitat for nesting or foraging birds. Several small mammal burrows were noted along the pond’s banks and within a soil stockpile near leach field three; however, no special-status species or sign were recorded within these burrows.
The proposed Clark Pacific alignment and facility supports a greater variety of habitat features and wildlife activity, when compared to the Bayer proposed alignment. A colony of cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) was observed nesting along the eaves and connecting bridge of the silos, and a red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) nest was documented on the southernmost silo platform, with annual nesting activity confirmed by Clark Pacific staff. The facility also contains two elderberry shrubs (Sambucus nigra) which have potential to support the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) however, no beetle sign was observed. The northern portion of the alignment along County Road 18C includes annual grassland and Fremont cottonwoods (Populus fremontii), while the southern side transitions into a residential corridor containing numerous valley oaks and Northern California black walnuts (Juglans hindsii). Scattered small mammal burrows were observed in drainage ditches, though no evidence of special-status wildlife was detected. Along County Road 101, an additional pair of Swainson’s hawks was observed foraging above adjacent agricultural fields.
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 3 Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results
LAND COVER TYPES
Land cover types identified in the survey area are described below. The location and extent of the land cover types in the survey area are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 and representative photos of the proposed utility alignments and their respective habitats are provided in Attachment A.
AGRICULTURAL LAND
The agricultural lands surround both the Clark Pacific and Bayer utility extension alignments and consist of field crops such as hay and alfalfa, as well as adjacent orchards. Although cultivated fields can temporarily provide foraging habitat for some special-status wildlife species, these areas are harvested and tilled annually, which substantially reduces their long-term habitat value and discourages wildlife use.
ANNUAL GRASSLAND
Annual grasslands are present along the northern edge of CR-18C within the Clark Pacific alignment. This land cover typically provides habitat for numerous special-status wildlife species and potential for rare plant species.
However, this area is actively managed these areas through regular mowing, which reduces vegetation structure and limits wildlife use and plant establishment potential. The leach field areas at Clark Pacific and Bayer are upland in nature, composed of compacted fill with sparse nonnative grasses, and do not exhibit wetland hydrology, hydric soils, or hydrophytic vegetation.
DEVELOPED
Developed areas consist primarily of impervious surfaces such as buildings, paved roads, parking lots, and graveled shoulders. Within the utility alignments, these areas offer little to no habitat value for special-status species, aside from minimal use by urban-tolerant wildlife.
HORTICULTURAL LANDSCAPE
Horticultural landscaped areas are present and are defined as intentionally planted and maintained with ornamental or native vegetation that receive supplemental irrigation, pruning, and maintenance. Although these areas can occasionally provide nesting or foraging habitat for common or urban-tolerant bird species, the frequent disturbance and regular landscape maintenance result in low potential habitat value for special-status species.
OAK WOODLAND
Native oak trees provide nesting, roosting, and foraging opportunities for numerous wildlife species, including raptors, woodpeckers, and cavity-nesting birds. The southern side of CR-18C, a continuous row of large valley oaks (Quercus lobata) was observed. The City of Woodland City of Woodland Tree Preservation Ordinance establishes protection standards for mature trees. Under Woodland Municipal Code Chapter 12.48, heritage oak trees (i.e. valley oaks measuring 33 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) or greater), and established trees (i.e. a tree of any species with a trunk diameter of 12 inches or more at DBH) are subject to the city’s tree preservation ordinance.
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results 4 Draft SEIR
Figure 1. Clark Pacific Utility Extension Alignment Land Cover Types J Potable Water Pipeline
----------------------------. •! r - *
Sewer Pipeline
» ires I1'1* 91
'll
Water/Sewer Pipeline
LEGEND
Proposed Pipelines
i = Potable Water Pipeline
i Sewer Pipeline
1 > Water/Sewer Pipeline
Construction Buffer
— 500-foot Biological
I J Survey Buffer
Oak Trees
Habitat Types
Agricultural Land (A)
Annual Grasslands (AG)
Developed Land (D)
Horticultural (H)
■ Retention Pond (RP)
FEET
Aerial Image: ESRI Imagery 3/18/22
60755449 SAC GIS 016 10/25
NORTH
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 5 Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results
Figure 2 Bayer Utility Extension Alignment Land Cover Types LEGEND
Proposed Pipelines
1 Potable Water Pipeline
1 Sewer Pipeline
Construction Buffer
p- —1 500-foot Biological
L— J Survey Buffer
Habitat Types
| Agricultural Land (A)
Annual Grasslands (AG)
Developed Land (D)
Retention Pond (RP)
Riparian Woodland (RW)
Sewer Pipeline
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results 6 Draft SEIR
AQUATIC RESOURCES
RETENTION PONDS
A single man-made retention pond was observed within the Bayer facility. The feature is designed to receive process water from the Bayer facility. It is artificially constructed in upland terrain and lacks a hydrologic connection to any natural drainage, stream, or wetland. The western bank of the pond supports interspersed riparian habitat containing large Fremont cottonwood trees and scrubby narrow-leaved willow (Salix exigua) trees that extend to the south of the retention pond, while the eastern side has a small band of non-native vegetation adjacent to an access area.
A man-made retention pond was observed on aerial images in the 500-foot buffer of the Clark Pacific facility.
This area was inaccessible during the survey, however, appears to be artificially constructed and lacks a hydrologic connection to any natural drainage, stream, or wetland. The feature appears to be designed for stormwater detention and management and likely collects runoff from adjacent areas.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS
A review of the database analysis identified 14 special-status plant species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the proposed utility extensions. Although several of these species are known or presumed present within the broader City of Woodland Planning Area, none were determined to have potential to occur within the Clark Pacific or Bayer utility extension alignments. Both utility extension alignments occur within disturbed agricultural and industrial landscapes dominated by upland soils, annual grassland, and developed surfaces. No alkaline flats, vernal pools, woodlands, marshes, or swamps, habitats typically supporting special-status plant species, are present within the 500-foot survey buffers. The 14 special-status plant species identified through the database queries are summarized in Table 1, which presents their regulatory status, habitat associations, and an analysis of the potential for each utility alignment to support the species.
Table 1. Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur Species Federal State1,2 Habitat
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension Alignment
Bayer Utility Extension
Alignment
Ferris’ milk-vetch
Astragalus tener
var. ferrisae
— 1B.1 Subalkaline flats and mesic sites in valley
and foothill grassland, meadows and seeps;
15 to 250 foot elevation.
Bloom: April–May.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is not
present within the survey
buffer.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is not
present within the survey
buffer.
Alkali milk-vetch
Astragalus tener
var. tener
— 1B.2 Alkaline soils within playas, vernal pools,
and adobe clay valley and foothill grassland
habitats; 0 to 196-foot elevation.
Bloom: March–June
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is not
present within the survey
buffer.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is not
present within the survey
buffer.
Heartscale
Atriplex cordulata
var. cordulata
— 1B.2 Saline or alkaline flats or scalds in
chenopod scrub, desert scrub, or meadow,
and grassland habitats in sandy soils; 1 to
500 foot elevation;
Blooms April–October.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is not
present within the survey
buffer.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is not
present within the survey
buffer.
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 7 Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results
Species Federal State1,2 Habitat
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension Alignment
Bayer Utility Extension
Alignment
Brittlescale
Atriplex depressa
— 1B.2 Alkaline clay soils within chenopod scrub,
meadow and seeps, playas, vernal pools,
and valley and foothill grassland habitats; 0
to 1,050 foot elevation.
Bloom: April–October
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is not
present within the survey
buffer.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is not
present within the survey
buffer.
Pappose tarplant
Centromadia parryi
ssp. parryi
__ 1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal prairie, Marshes and
swamps (coastal salt), Meadows and seeps,
Valley and foothill grassland (vernally
mesic); Alkaline (often); 0-1,380 feet
elevation.
Bloom: May-November
Unlikely to occur:
Although grassland habitat
is present near the
alignment, the required
habitat is not present within
the alignment.
Unlikely to occur.
Required habitat is not
present within or near the
alignment.
Palmate-bracted
bird’s beak
Chloropyron
palmatum
E E
1B.1
Alkaline soils in seasonally flooded
lowlands; 16 to 510 foot elevation.
Bloom: May–October
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is not
present within the survey
buffer.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is not
present within the survey
buffer.
San Joaquin
spearscale
Extriplex
joaquinana
— 1B.2 Alkaline soils on chenopod scrub, meadow
and seeps, playas, and valley and foothill
grassland; 3 to 2,740 foot elevation.
Bloom: April–October
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is not
present within the survey
buffer.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is not
present within the survey
buffer.
Woolly rose-
mallow
Hibiscus
lasiocarpus var.
occidentalis
— 1B.2 Marshes and swamps (freshwater); from 0
to 320 feet in elevation.
Blooms June to September.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
habitat is not present within
the survey buffer.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
habitat is not present within
the survey buffer.
Heckard’s pepper-
grass
Lepidium latipes
var. heckardii
— 1B.2 Alkaline flats in valley and foothill
grassland; 6 to 656 foot elevation.
Bloom: March–May
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is not
present within the survey
buffer.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
alkaline habitat is not
present within the survey
buffer.
Baker's navarretia
Navarretia
leucocephala ssp.
bakeri
__ 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps,
Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools;
Mesic. 15-5,710 feet elevation.
Bloom: April-July.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
habitat is not present within
the survey buffer.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
habitat is not present within
the survey buffer.
California alkali
grass
Puccinellia simplex
— 1B.2 Saline flats, mineral springs; below 3,000
feet elevation.
Bloom: March–May.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
habitat is not present within
the survey buffer.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
habitat is not present within
the survey buffer.
Keck's
checkerbloom
Sidalcea keckii
__ 1B.1 Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill
grassland; Clay, Serpentinite; 245-2,135
feet elevation.
Bloom: April-May
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
soils and substrate are not
present within the survey
buffer.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
soils and substrate are not
present within the survey
buffer.
Suisun Marsh aster
Symphiotrichum
lentum
— 1B.2 Brackish and freshwater marshes and
swamps; 0–10 foot elevation;
Blooms: May–November.
No potential to occur.
Alignment is not within
elevation range for this
species.
No potential to occur.
Alignment is not within
elevation range for this
species.
Saline clover
Trifolium
hydrophilum
— 1B.2 Marshes and swamps, vernal pools, and
mesic, alkaline valley and foothill
grassland; 0 to 984-foot elevation.
Bloom: April–June
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
swamps, vernal pools or
alkaline grassland habitat is
not present within the
survey buffer.
Unlikely to occur. Suitable
swamps, vernal pools or
alkaline grassland habitat is
not present within the
survey buffer.
Table Notes:
1 State: E = Listed as endangered under CESA.
2 California Rare Plant Ranks and extensions
1B = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere.
.1 = Seriously endangered in California (>80 percent of occurrences are threatened and/or high degree and immediacy of threat ). 1B = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere.
.1 = Seriously endangered in California (>80 percent of occurrences are threatened and/or high degree and immediacy of threat ). .2 = Fairly endangered in California (20 to 80 percent of occurrences are threatened).
Sources: Table 4.4-2 of the 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR, CNDDB 2025, CNPS 2025; compiled by AECOM in 2025.
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results 8 Draft SEIR
SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE
The database analysis identified 32 special-status wildlife species and 6 special-status fish species with potential to occur within the proposed survey area or its vicinity. Of the wildlife species evaluated for their potential to occur, 9 species were determined to have a moderate or high potential to occur. These species are listed below and include taxa associated with grassland, riparian, and open woodland habitats.
All vegetation types present within the project area—including annual grassland, retention and detention ponds, valley oak woodland, riparian habitats, and mature trees within developed areas—have the potential to provide foraging and nesting habitat for migratory birds and other native wildlife species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513.
INVERTEBRATES
• Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) – Could occur at Clark Pacific, where two elderberry shrubs were observed near the leach field; no sign of beetle activity was detected. Unlikely at Bayer due to absence of host plants. • Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) – Could occur at both alignments. Marginal open-grassland habitat near the alignments may provide limited foraging opportunities.
BIRDS
• Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) – Known to occur at both alignments. Large trees adjacent to the alignments offer suitable nesting habitat, and nearby agricultural fields provide high-quality foraging areas.
• Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) – Could occur at both alignments. Grassland and fallow agricultural fields near the project provide potential nesting and foraging habitat. • White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) – Could occur at both alignments. Isolated trees and adjacent grasslands may provide nesting and foraging habitat.
• Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) – Could occur at both alignments. Nests and forages in nearby grassland and shrub habitats.
• Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) – Could occur at both alignments. Suitable riparian thickets and shrub vegetation are present in limited areas near the alignments. • Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) – Could occur at both alignments. Foraging habitat occurs near the alignments; at Bayer, burrows were detected near the retention pond but no owl sign was observed. • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) – Could occur near Clark Pacific. Suitable roosting opportunities may exist in oak hollows or nearby structures.
The six fish species identified through the database queries were excluded from further evaluation because no suitable aquatic habitat for fish exists within or adjacent to the proposed alignments.
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 9 Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results
The special-status wildlife species identified through the database analysis are summarized in Table 2, which presents their regulatory status, habitat associations, and an analysis of the potential for each utility alignment to support these species.
Table 2. Special Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur Species
Federal
Listing
Status.1
State
Listing
Status2 Habitat
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension Alignment
Bayer Utility Extension
Alignment
Invertebrates
Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
T _ Blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana)
shrubs (the host plant species), typically as
an abundant component in dense riparian
habitat below 3,000 feet in elevation; on
slightly higher and older floodplain surfaces
without saturated soils (Vaghti et al. 2009).
Could occur. Two blue
elderberry shrubs on the
northern edge of the
leach field; no sign of
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle exit
holes on shrubs.
Unlikely to occur.
Required habitat is not
present within or
adjacent to the
alignment; no
elderberry shrubs
present.
Crotch's bumble
bee
Bombus crotchii
_ CE Open grassland and scrub; nests
underground. Food plants include milkweed,
lupine (Lupinus spp.), burclover (Medicago
spp.), phacelia (Phacelia spp.), and sage
(Salvia spp.).
Could occur. Marginal
habitat is present near the
alignment.
Could occur. Marginal
habitat is present near
the alignment.
Monarch butterfly
Danaus plexippus
PT _ Open habitats including fields, meadows,
weedy areas, marshes, and roadsides.
Monarch butterflies roost in wind-protected
tree groves (such as eucalyptus) with nectar
and water sources nearby. Caterpillar host
plants are milkweeds (Asclepias spp.).
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable habitat
(milkweed) was not
identified within the
alignment.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable habitat
(milkweed) was not
identified within the
alignment.
Western
bumblebee
Bombus
occidentalis
_ CE Nests underground.
Visits a wide variety of wildflowers. In
California, this species is currently observed
in high elevation meadows, forests, riparian
areas in the Sierra Nevada and Cascades as
well as in coastal grasslands in northern
California (CDFW 2022)
Unlikely to occur. The
alignment is outside this
species’ current known
range.
Unlikely to occur. The
alignment is outside this
species’ current known
range.
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta
lynchi
T _ Vernal pool habitats ranging from small,
clear pools in sandstone rock outcrops to
large, turbid, and/or alkaline vernal pools.
Most commonly in grass- or mud-bottomed
basalt flow depression pools in unplowed
grasslands.
Unlikely to occur.
Vernal pools are not
present within the
alignment.
Unlikely to occur.
Vernal pools are not
present within the
alignment.
Vernal pool
tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus
packardi
E _ Vernal pools or swales that form in slight
depressions after being inundated following
fall and winter rains. The pools contain clear
to highly turbid water and have an
impervious hardpan, claypan, or basalt layer
beneath the soil surface that retains the
water for a few months at a time.
Unlikely to occur.
Vernal pools are not
present within the
alignment.
Unlikely to occur.
Vernal pools are not
present within the
alignment.
Amphibians and
Reptiles
California red-
legged frog
Rana draytonii
T SSC Foothill streams with dense shrubby or
emergent riparian vegetation, minimum 11–
20 weeks of water for larval development,
and upland refugia for aestivation.
Unlikely to occur. The
alignment is outside this
species’ currently known
occupied range.
Unlikely to occur. The
alignment is outside this
species’ currently
known occupied range.
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results 10 Draft SEIR
Species
Federal
Listing
Status.1
State
Listing
Status2 Habitat
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension Alignment
Bayer Utility Extension
Alignment
California tiger
salamander
Ambystoma
californiense
T T Vernal pools and seasonal wetlands with a
minimum 10-week inundation period and
surrounding uplands, primarily grasslands,
with burrows and other belowground refugia
(e.g., rock or soil crevices).
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable vernal pool and
seasonal wetland habitat
is not present within the
alignment.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable vernal pool and
seasonal wetland habitat
is not present within the
alignment.
Northwestern
pond turtle
Actinemys
marmorata
PT SSC Permanent and nearly permanent waters,
including ponds, lakes, marshes, slow-
moving streams, rivers, sloughs, and
irrigation canals/ditches with open bank
areas, emergent vegetation, and logs or
boulders for basking. Nests along the
aquatic habitat shore or in adjacent uplands
in sunny, open hillsides or fields, as long as
appropriate soil moisture and warmth are
present. Generally nest within 325 feet of
aquatic habitat, but has been reported to nest
up to 1,600 feet from water.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable aquatic habitat is
not present within the
alignment.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable aquatic habitat
is not present within the
alignment.
Western
spadefoot
Spea hammondii
PT SSC Shallow streams with riffles and seasonal
wetlands, such as vernal pools in annual
grasslands and oak woodlands, also
temporary rainpools.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable aquatic habitat is
not present within the
alignment.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable aquatic habitat
is not present within the
alignment.
Giant garter snake
Thamnophis
gigas
T T Cultivated rice, freshwater marsh, and slow
moving streams, ditches, or canals.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable aquatic habitat
and connectivity are not
present within the
alignment..
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable aquatic habitat
and connectivity are not
present within the
alignment..
Birds
Swainson’s Hawk
Buteo swainsoni
(nesting)
_ T Nests in riparian forest and isolated trees,
open woodlands, and woodland margins;
nests and forage in grasslands and
agricultural fields.
Known to occur.
Numerous large trees are
present adjacent to the
alignment for nesting
potential; foraging
habitat present;
documented presence
during field survey.
Known to occur.
Numerous large trees
are present adjacent to
the alignment for
nesting potential;
foraging habitat present;
documented presence
during field survey.
Northern harrier
Circus hudsonius
(nesting)
_ SSC Nests and forages in grasslands, agricultural
fields, and marshes. Nests on the ground
within patches of dense, often tall,
vegetation in undisturbed areas (MacWhirter
and Bildstein 1996).
Could occur. Suitable
habitat is present near
alignment.
Could occur. Suitable
habitat is present near
alignment.
White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
(nesting)
_ FP Forages in grasslands and agricultural fields;
nests in riparian zones, oak woodlands, and
isolated trees.
Could occur. Foraging
habitat and isolated
nesting trees are present
near alignment.
Could occur. Foraging
habitat and isolated
nesting trees are present
near alignment.
Least bittern
Ixobrychus exilis
(nesting)
_ SSC Nests in freshwater and brackish marshes
with tall, dense emergent vegetation with
clumps of woody plants over deep water.
Unlikely to nest.
Suitable nesting habitat is
not present due to lack of
deep-water bodies.
Unlikely to nest.
Suitable nesting habitat
is not present due to
lack of deep-water
bodies.
Western snowy
plover
Charadrius
nivosus nivosus
(nesting)
T SSC Nests and forages on sandy and gravelly
beaches along the coast and the shores of
inland alkali lakes. Has also been
documented nesting on levees of artificial
ponds in Yolo County, including sewage
treatment ponds. Needs sandy or gravelly,
friable soils for nesting.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable nesting habitat is
not present due to lack of
sandy or gravelly, friable
soils for nesting.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable nesting habitat
is not present due to
lack of sandy or
gravelly, friable soils
for nesting.
Mountain plover
Charadrius
montanus
(wintering)
_ SSC Forages in short grasslands and plowed
agricultural fields where vegetation is sparse
and trees are absent.
Could occur. Foraging
habitat is present near the
alignment.
Could occur. Foraging
habitat is present near
the alignment.
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 11 Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results
Species
Federal
Listing
Status.1
State
Listing
Status2 Habitat
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension Alignment
Bayer Utility Extension
Alignment
Western yellow-
billed cuckoo
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
(nesting)
T E Nests in large blocks of deciduous riparian
thickets or forests with dense, low-level or
understory foliage adjacent to slow-moving
watercourses, backwaters along broad,
lower floodplains of larger river systems.
Willow and cottonwood are almost always a
component of the vegetation. In the
Sacramento Valley, also utilizes adjacent
walnut orchards.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable riparian habitat
is not present in or near
the alignment. The
alignment is outside the
species’ current breeding
range.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable riparian habitat
is not present in or near
the alignment. The
alignment is outside the
species’ current
breeding range.
Grasshopper
sparrow
Ammodramus
savannarum
(nesting)
_ SSC Forages and nests in dense grasslands;
favors a mix of native grasses, forbs, and
scattered shrubs. Nests in depressions on the
ground at the bases of grass clumps. Prefers
large tracts of habitat.
Unlikely to occur. Large
tracts of suitable habitat
in large tracts of dense
grasslands with a mix of
native grasses, forbs and
scattered shrubs are not
present.
Unlikely to occur.
Large tracts of suitable
habitat in large tracts of
dense grasslands with a
mix of native grasses,
forbs and scattered
shrubs are not present.
Song sparrow –
“Modesto”
population
(Melospiza
melodia pop. 1)
(year round)
_ SSC Nests and forages primarily in emergent
marsh, riparian scrub, and early successional
riparian forest habitats in the north-central
portion of the Central Valley; infrequently
in mature riparian forest and sparsely
vegetated ditches and levees. Forages
primarily on exposed ground or in leaf litter.
Unlikely to occur. This
species is unlikely to nest
due to a lack of suitable
marsh and riparian scrub
habitat.
Unlikely to occur. This
species is unlikely to
nest due to a lack of
suitable marsh and
riparian scrub habitat.
Purple martin
Progne subis
(nesting)
_ SSC Nests in tree cavities, bridges, freeway
overpasses, utility poles, lava tubes, and
buildings. Forages in foothill and low
montane oak and riparian woodlands; less
frequently in coniferous forests and open or
developed habitats.
Unlikely to occur. Lack
of known breeding
colonies within the
alignment and existing
trees provide marginal
nesting habitat. .
Unlikely to occur.
Lack of known breeding
colonies within the
alignment and existing
trees provide marginal
nesting habitat.
Bank swallow
Riparia riparia
(nesting)
_ T Nests in colonies in unvegetated vertical
banks or cliffs with fine-textured, sandy
soils, typically next to streams, rivers, or
lakes. Forages in a variety of habitats near
nests.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable nesting habitat
along vertical banks or
cliffs are not present.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable nesting habitat
along vertical banks or
cliffs are not present.
Tricolored
Blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
(nesting)
_ T/SSC Forages in agricultural lands and grasslands;
nests in marshes, riparian scrub, and other
areas that support cattails or dense thickets
of shrubs or herbs.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable nesting habitat,
such as blackberry
thickets and cattails, is
not present.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable nesting habitat,
such as blackberry
thickets and cattails, is
not present.
Yellow-headed
blackbird
Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
(nesting)
_ SSC Nests in marshes with tall, dense emergent
vegetation, most commonly at the edges of
lakes, reservoirs, or ponds with relatively
deep water. Forages in freshwater marshes,
and sometimes in nearby open fields,
preferably with moist ground.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable nesting habitat
in the form of marshes
and tall dense emergent
vegetation and deep
water is not present.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable nesting habitat
in the form of marshes
and tall dense emergent
vegetation and deep
water is not present.
Loggerhead
shrike
Lanius
ludovicianus
(nesting)
_ SSC Forages and nests in grasslands, shrublands,
and open woodlands. Nests in trees and
shrubs.
Could occur. Suitable
nesting habitat is present
adjacent to the alignment.
Could occur. Suitable
nesting habitat is
present adjacent to the
alignment.
Yellow-breasted
chat
Icteria virens
(nesting)
_ SSC Forages and nests in riparian thickets of
willow, blackberry, and wild grape within
10 feet of the ground.
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable riparian scrub
habitat is not present=..
Unlikely to occur.
Suitable riparian scrub
habitat is not present.
Yellow warbler
Setophaga
petechial
(nesting)
_ SSC Nests in riparian vegetation such as willows,
cottonwoods, and alders.
Unlikely to occur. The
alignment is outside the
species’ current breeding
range.
Unlikely to occur. The
alignment is outside the
species’ current
breeding range.
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results 12 Draft SEIR
Species
Federal
Listing
Status.1
State
Listing
Status2 Habitat
Clark Pacific Utility
Extension Alignment
Bayer Utility Extension
Alignment
Western
burrowing owl
Athene
cunicularia
hypugaea
(year round)
_ CE/SSC Nests and forages in grasslands, agricultural
lands, open shrublands, and open woodlands
with existing ground squirrel burrows or
friable soils.
Could occur: No
suitable burrows detected
along alignment. Suitable
foraging habitat is
present near alignment.
Could occur: Burrows
were detected within the
retention pond area,
though no sign of the
species was detected.
Suitable foraging
habitat is present near
alignment.
Least Bell’s vireo
Vireo bellii
pusillus
(nesting)
E E Nests and forages in low, dense riparian
vegetation along perennial or intermittent
streams.
Unlikely to occur.
Alignment is outside the
species’ current breeding
range and lacks suitable
nesting habitat.
Unlikely to occur.
Alignment is outside the
species’ current
breeding range and
lacks suitable nesting
habitat.
Mammals
American badger
Taxidea taxus
_ SSC Drier open shrub, forest, and herbaceous
habitats with friable soils for digging
burrows.
Unlikely to occur.
Extensive patches of
undisturbed habitat are
not present; burrows
present were not large
enough for badger use.
Unlikely to occur.
Extensive patches of
undisturbed habitat are
not present; burrows
present were not large
enough for badger use
Pallid bat
Antrozous
pallidus
_ SSC Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands,
and forests. Most common in open, dry
habitats with rocky areas for roosting.
Roosts in rock crevices, oak hollows,
bridges, or buildings.
Could occur. Suitable
habitat present; oak
hollows present.
Unlikely to occur.
Required habitat is not
present within the
alignment; no oak
hollows, rocks, or
woodlands
Western red bat
Lasiurus
blossevilli
_ SSC Roosts primarily in dense tree foliage,
especially in cottonwood, sycamore, and
other riparian trees or orchards (Pierson et
al. 2004). Prefers habitat edges and mosaics
with trees that are protected from above and
open below and open areas for foraging,
including grasslands, shrublands, and open
woodlands.
Unlikely to occur.
Required habitat is not
present.
Unlikely to occur.
Required habitat is not
present.
Table Notes:
CAP EIR =Climate Action Plan Environmental Impact Report; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database; I-5 = Interstate 5; SR = State Route 1 Federal: T = Listed as threatened under ESA; E = Listed as endangered under ESA 2 State: T = Listed as threatened under CESA; E = Listed as endangered under CESA; C = Candidate for listing under CESA; FP = Fully Protected under California Fish and Game Code; SSC = Considered a species of special concern by CDFW Source: Table 4.4-3 of 2035 General Plan and CAP EIR; CNDDB 2025, USFWS 2025; CNPS 2025, compiled by AECOM in 2025
CONCLUSION
BAYER ALIGNMENT
The Bayer alignment is located within an agricultural field. This field is typically used to grow vegetable or cover crops and hay on a rotational basis and is harvested or tilled annually. The pipelines would be installed into trenches on the north and south sides of the gravel access road that runs east to west through the field (Photo 1).
The alignment connection point on the east side runs through a vegetated drainage canal, into a developed area (Photo 2). The western connection point is an active well, fenced in and surrounded by gravel (Photo 3). The three leach fields within the facility are mowed grasslands, surrounded by developed infrastructure and gravel roads (Photo 4-Photo 6). Leach field two drains into a culvert that leads to the retention pond area (Photo 7). The potable water well to be decommissioned sits within a fenced and graveled area (Photo 8).
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR 13 Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results
Although the Bayer alignment is relatively void of habitat, there are numerous large trees within the facility and surrounding the agricultural field that have raptor nesting potential. One Swainson’s hawk pair was observed soaring over the northern portion of the field during the survey. In addition, the retention pond provides riverine habitat and has potential to host other state/federally listed species (Photo 9). Lastly, small mammal burrows were noted along the retention pond banks (Photo 10) and atop the staged soil pile located on the western edge of the facility, near leach field three (Photo 11). No special status species or their sign were observed within the burrows.
CLARK PACIFIC ALIGNMENT
A colony of cliff swallow nests was detected along the eaves of the historical silos and the bridge connecting them (Photo 12). A large stick nest was also observed on the ladder platform of the southernmost silo (Photo 13). This nest annually supports a red-tailed hawk according to Clark Pacific staff. Bird exclusion methods such as hardware cloth and noise machines have been installed within the facility It also supports two elderberry shrubs (Photo 14) and one large Valley oak (Photo 15). No sign of valley elderberry longhorn beetle was observed on the shrubs.
The northern side of the alignment along County Road 18C is primarily annual grassland and Fremont cottonwoods (Photo 16). There is a drainage canal that parallels the road (Photo 17). The southern side of the alignment along County Road 18C is within a residential area and hosts numerous large valley oaks (Photo 18) and Northern California black walnuts. The drip lines of these trees extend into the proposed pipe alignment (Photo 19). A drainage ditch also parallels this side of the road and contains a few sporadic small mammal burrows (Photo 19). No special status species or their sign were observed within the burrows.
At the intersection of County Roads 18C and 101, there is a stormwater detention area behind a locked gate on the northern side (Photo 20). There are concrete lined culverts in front of the access gate to this area. An overview photograph was taken atop the bank, showing the presence of narrowleaf willows and Fremont cottonwoods (Photo 21). The neighboring properties are agricultural fields.
The eastern side of County Road 101 is agricultural fields of alfalfa and hay. A drainage ditch has been excavated in the soil along the road (Photo 23). One Swainson’s hawk pair was observed soaring over the field. The western side of County Road 101 is dominated by orchards, with one residence located along the road (Photo 25). This residential area has a mixed forest, including Valley oaks (Photo 26). The pipeline alignment would connect into existing main lines at the intersection of County Road 101, Churchill Downs Avenue, and North Pioneer Avenue.
The land cover in this area is primarily developed, with horticultural areas within business parking lots.
Attachment A provides representative photographs of the survey areas. Attachment B provides a complete list of wildlife species observed. Attachment C provides a list of plant species observed along the alignments.
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results 14 Draft SEIR
REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2025. CNDDB: California Natural Diversity Database; Nine-Quad Search of the Davis, Eldorado Bend, Grays Bend, Knights Landing, Madison, Merritt, Winters, Woodland, and Zamora. 7.5-minute Quadrangles. Project species list can be generated online at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed on July 21, 2025.
California Native Plant Society. 2025. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants; Two-Quad Search of the Woodland and Grays Bend 7.5-minute Quadrangles. Project species can be generated online at:
https://rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed on July 21, 2025.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2025a. IPaC: Information for Planning and Consulting. Project species list can be generated online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed on July 21, 2025. _____. 2025b. National Wetlands Inventory – Wetlands Mapper. Available at: Wetlands Mapper | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Accessed on July 21, 2025.
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR A-1 Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results Attachment A: Representative Photo Log
Photo 1. Overview of Bayer pipeline alignment within the agricultural field. Photograph facing east.
Photo 2. Eastern connection point of the Bayer pipeline through a roadside ditch into a developed area. Photograph facing east.
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results A-2 Draft SEIR
Photo 3. Western connection point of the Bayer pipeline. Photograph facing southeast.
Photo 4. Overview of leach field one within the Bayer facility. Photograph facing southeast.
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR A-3 Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results
Photo 5. Overview of leach field two within the Bayer facility. Photograph facing southwest.
Photo 6. Culvert with drainage from leach field two leading to the retention pond area within the Bayer facility. Photograph facing east.
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results A-4 Draft SEIR
Photo 7. Well to be decommissioned within the Bayer facility. Photograph facing northwest.
Photo 8. Overview of the retention pond from the northernmost gate within the Bayer facility.
Photograph facing south.
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR A-5 Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results
Photo 9. Burrows located on the banks of the retention pond area within the Bayer facility.
Photograph facing southeast.
Photo 10. Burrows within the staged soil piles to the west of leach field three within the Bayer facility.
Photograph facing southwest.
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results A-6 Draft SEIR
Photo 11. Cliff swallow nests on the silos within the Clark Pacific facility. Photograph facing west.
Photo 12. Large stick nest located on the platform to the silos within the Clark Pacific facility.
Photograph facing southeast.
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR A-7 Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results
Photo 13. Overview of the leach field with the Clark Pacific facility. Photograph facing southwest .
Photo 14. Two elderberry shrubs along the northern fence line of the leach field within the Clark Pacific facility. Photograph facing northwest.
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results A-8 Draft SEIR
Photo 15. Valley oak within the Clark Pacific leach field. Photograph facing northwest.
Photo 16. Overview of the northern side of the Clark Pacific alignment along County Road 18C.
Photograph facing east.
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR A-9 Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results
Photo 17. Valley oaks present along the southern side of CR -18C along the proposed Clark Pacific pipeline alignment. Photograph facing west.
Photo 18. Example of valley oaks along the southern side of CR -18C with drip lines extending into the road along the Clark Pacific pipeline alignment. Photograph facing west.
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results A-10 Draft SEIR
Photo 19. Burrows located within the drainage canal along the southern side of CR -18C along the Clark Pacific pipeline alignment. Photograph facing southwest.
Photo 20. Stormwater detention area along the northern side of CR -18C adjacent to the Clark pacific pipeline alignment. Photograph facing northwest.
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR A-11 Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results
Photo 21. Overview of Fremont cottonwoods and narrowleaf willows within stormwater detention area on northern side of CR-18C adjacent to the Clark Pacific pipeline alignment. Photograph facing northwest.
Photo 22. Overview of the eastern side of CR -101 along the Clark Pacific pipeline alignment.
Photograph facing north.
AECOM General Plan Amendment
Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results A-12 Draft SEIR
Photo 23. Orchards present along the western side of CR -101 along the Clark Pacific pipeline alignment. Photograph facing south.
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR B-1 Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results Attachment B: List of Wildlife Species Observed
Common Name Scientific Name
Birds
American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
American Goldfinch Spinus tristis
Anna’s Hummingbird Calypte anna
Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris
House Finch Haemorhous mexicanus
Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus
Lesser Goldfinch Spinus psaltria
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura
Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Rock Pigeon Columba livia
Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni
Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura
Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis
Reptiles
Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis
Mammals
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii
General Plan Amendment AECOM
Draft SEIR C-1 Biological Reconnaissance Survey Results Attachment C: List of Plant Species Observed
Common Name Scientific Name
Alfalfa Medicago sativa
Artichoke thistle Cynara cardunculus
Black mustard Brassica nigra
Bromes Bromus spp.
Butterfly bush Buddleja davidii
California poppy Eschscholzia californica
Century plant Agave americana
Chinese hackberry Celtis sinensis
Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis
Curly Dock Rumex crispus
Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara
Elderberry Sambucus nigra
Eucalyptus Eucalyptus sp.
Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis
Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii
Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta
Narrowleaf willow Salix exigua
Northern California black walnut Juglans hindsii
Oleander Nerium oleander
Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola
Stinkwort Dittrichia graveolens
Toothpickweed Visnaga daucoides
Valley oak Quercus lobata
Vinegarweed Trichostema lanceolatum
Wild oats Avena spp.
Yellow-star thistle Centaurea solstitialis
Appendix F Yolo Habitat Conservation
Plan/Natural Communities
Conservation Plan EIS/EIR,
Appendix C, Avoidance and
Minimization Measures
U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Yolo Habitat Conservancy Appendix C Avoidance and Minimization Measures
AMM1, Establish Buffers. Project proponents will design projects to avoid and minimize direct and indirect effects of permanent development on the sensitive natural communities specified in Table 4-1 (herein referred to as sensitive natural communities) and covered species habitat specified in Table 4-1 by providing buffers, as stipulated in the relevant sensitive natural community AMMs (Section 4.3.3) and covered species AMMs (Section 4.3.4). On lands owned by the project proponent, the project proponent will establish a conservation easement, consistent with Section 6.4.1.3, Land Protection Mechanisms, to protect the buffer permanently if that land is being offered in lieu of development fees, as described in Section 4.2.2.6, Item 6:
HCP/NCCP Fees or Equivalent Mitigation. The project proponent will design buffer zones adjacent to permanent residential development projects to control access by humans and pets (AMM2, Design Developments to Minimize Indirect Effects at Urban-Habitat Interfaces).
Where existing development is already within the stipulated buffer distance (i.e., existing uses prevent establishment of the full buffer), the development will not encroach farther into the space between the development and the sensitive natural community.
This AMM does not apply to seasonal construction buffers for covered species, which are detailed for each species in Section 4.3.4, Covered Species.
A lesser buffer than is stipulated in the AMMs may be approved by the Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFW if they determine that the sensitive natural community or covered species is avoided to an extent that is consistent with the project purpose (e.g., if the purpose of the project is to provide a stream crossing or replace a bridge, the project may encroach into the buffer and the natural community or species habitat to the extent that is necessary to fulfill the project purpose).
AMM2, Design Developments to Minimize Indirect Effects at Urban-Habitat Interfaces. For development projects implemented adjacent to non-agricultural natural communities and covered species habitats, project proponents will incorporate urban-habitat interface elements into project design to minimize the following indirect effects of the development on adjacent habitat areas:
Noise and visual disturbances that diminish the ability of covered and other native wildlife species to use the habitat.
Increased numbers of pets (e.g., dogs, cats) that can result in harassment and mortality of covered and other native wildlife species.
Increased levels of direct habitat disturbances associated with increased human access to habitats (e.g., destruction of vegetation and injury or mortality of wildlife associated with use of off-road vehicles). Escape or planting of invasive nonnative plants.
This AMM does not apply to development where it is immediately adjacent to existing developed lands.
The project proponent will implement the following urban-habitat interface design elements and activities, as applicable, to each discretionary project:
Place roads or other non-residential spaces, such as parks or greenbelts, rather than lots at the urban- natural community interface. The benefits of this may include a reduction in the number of incidences of pets entering the natural communities.
Design roads, bike paths, and trails to discourage entry of humans and pets into adjacent natural communities and promote citizen policing at the natural community periphery.
Yolo HCP/NCCP Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report April 2018 C-1
Appendix C U.S. Fish and Wildli fe and Yolo Habitat Conservancy Establish barriers that discourage entry of humans and pets into natural community areas. Design fences to prevent pets from escaping yards into adjacent natural communities, control entry and dumping of trash into adjacent natural communities, and when appropriate, shield adjacent natural communities from visual disturbances that may interfere with normal wildlife behavioral patterns. Fence new public roads associated with developments to prevent unauthorized public access into habitat areas and effectively direct wildlife to specially designed crossing structures. Design development drainage systems and implement appropriate best management practices to avoid changes to overland flow and water quality in natural community areas, including streamcourses. Design development lighting to avoid projecting light into adjacent natural community areas. For lights at or near the urban-natural community interface, use low-glare lighting to minimize lighting effects on natural communities.
AMM3, Confine and Delineate Work Area. Where natural communities and covered species habitat are present, workers will confine land clearing to the minimum area necessary to facilitate construction activities. Workers will restrict movement of heavy equipment to and from the project site to established roadways to minimize natural community and covered species habitat disturbance. The project proponent will clearly identify boundaries of work areas using temporary fencing or equivalent and will identify areas designated as environmentally sensitive. All construction vehicles, other equipment, and personnel will avoid these designated areas.
AMM4, Cover Trenches and Holes during Construction and Maintenance. To prevent injury and mortality of giant garter snake, western pond turtle, and California tiger salamander, workers will cover open trenches and holes associated with implementation of covered activities that affect habitat for these species or design the trenches and holes with escape ramps that can be used during non-working hours. The construction contractor will inspect open trenches and holes prior to filling and contact a qualified biologist to remove or release any trapped wildlife found in the trenches or holes.
AMM5, Control Fugitive Dust. Workers will minimize the spread of dust from work sites to natural communities or covered species habitats on adjacent lands.
AMM6, Conduct Worker Training. All construction personnel will participate in a worker environmental training program approved/authorized by the Conservancy and administered by a qualified biologist. The training will provide education regarding sensitive natural communities and covered species and their habitats, the need to avoid adverse effects, state and federal protection, and the legal implications of violating the FESA and NCCPA Permits. A pre-recorded video presentation by a qualified biologist shown to construction personnel may fulfill the training requirement.
AMM7, Control Nighttime Lighting of Project Construction Sites. Workers will direct all lights for nighttime lighting of project construction sites into the project construction area and minimize the lighting of natural habitat areas adjacent to the project construction area.
AMM8, Avoid and Minimize Effects of Construction Staging Areas and Temporary Work Areas. Project proponents should locate construction staging and other temporary work areas for covered activities in areas that will ultimately be a part of the permanent project development footprint. If construction staging and other temporary work areas must be located outside of permanent project footprints, they will be located either in areas that do not support habitat for covered species or are easily restored to prior or improved ecological functions (e.g., grassland and agricultural land). Construction staging and other temporary work areas located outside of project footprints will be sited in areas that avoid adverse effects on the following:
April 2018 Yolo HCP/NCCP Final Environmental Im pact Statement/Environmental Impact Report C-2
U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Yolo Habitat Conservancy Appendix C Serpentine, valley oak woodland, alkali prairie, vernal pool complex, valley foothill riparian, and fresh emergent wetland land cover types.
Occupied western burrowing owl burrows. [Occupied for the purpose of AMM8 means at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying the burrow within the last three years. Occupancy of a burrow may also be indicated by owl sign at the burrow entrance, including molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site] Nest sites for covered bird species and all raptors, including noncovered raptors, during the breeding season.
Project proponents will follow specific AMMs for sensitive natural communities (Section 4.3.3, Sensitive Natural Communities) and covered species (Section 4.3.4, Covered Species) in temporary staging and work areas. For establishment of temporary work areas outside of the project footprint, project proponents will conduct surveys to determine if any of the biological resources listed above are present.
Within one year following removal of land cover, project proponents will restore temporary work and staging areas to a condition equal to or greater than the covered species habitat function of the affected habitat.
Restoration of vegetation in temporary work and staging areas will use clean, native seed mixes approved by the Conservancy that are free of noxious plant species seeds.
AMM9, Establish Buffers around Sensitive Natural Communities. The buffers for each sensitive natural community are as follows:
Alkali prairie and vernal pools: The area necessary to provide the hydrologic conditions needed to support the wetlands within these natural communities (250 feet). Covered activities will avoid vernal pools or alkali seasonal wetlands by 250 feet [Alkali seasonal wetlands are seasonal wetlands within the alkali prairie natural community], or other distance based on site specific topography to avoid indirect hydrologic effects. A buffer of less than 250 feet around vernal pools or alkali seasonal wetlands will be subject to wildlife agency concurrence that effects will be avoided. Considerations that may warrant a buffer of less than 250 feet may include topography (i.e., if the surrounding microwatershed extends less than 250 feet from the pool or wetland), intervening hydrologic barriers such as roads or canals, or other factors indicating that the proposed disturbance area does not contribute to the pool’s hydrology. Other considerations may include temporary disturbance during the dry season where measures are implemented to avoid disturbance of the underlying claypan or hardpan, and the area is returned to pre- project conditions prior to the following rainy season. Valley foothill riparian: One hundred feet from canopy drip-line. If avoidance is infeasible, a lesser buffer or encroachment into the sensitive natural community may be allowed if approved by the Conservancy and the wildlife agencies, based on the criteria listed in AMM1. Transportation or utility crossings may encroach into this sensitive natural community provided effects are minimized and all other applicable AMMs are followed.
Lacustrine and riverine: Outside urban planning units, 100 feet from the top of banks [Defined as the area within which water is contained in a channel.]. Within urban planning units, 25 feet from the top of the banks.
Fresh emergent wetland: Fifty feet from the edge of the natural community.
AMM10, Avoid and Minimize Effects on Wetlands and Waters. Project proponents will comply with stormwater management plans that regulate development as part of compliance with regulations under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Covered activities that result in any fill of waters or wetlands will also comply with requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), Fish and Game Code Section 1602, and Regional Board regulations. Other than requirements for buffers, minimizing project footprint, and species-specific measures Yolo HCP/NCCP Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report April 2018 C-3
Appendix C U.S. Fish and Wildli fe and Yolo Habitat Conservancy for wetland-dependent covered species, this HCP/NCCP does not include specific best management practices for protecting wetlands and waters because they may conflict with measures required by the USACE, State Board, Regional Board, and CDFW.
AMM11, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Palmate-Bracted Bird’s Beak. Palmate-bracted bird’s-beak is covered by the Yolo HCP/NCCP only for the removal of suitable habitat and not for the removal of palmate- bracted bird’s beak plants. This AMM ensures compliance with this provision. To determine if palmate- bracted bird’s-beak is present and could be affected, the project proponent will conduct a planning-level survey for this species for any covered activities to be conducted within 250 feet of suitable habitat (as defined in Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts). The survey will be conducted during the period from May 31 to September 30 and will be consistent with Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (California Department of Fish and Game 2009).
The project proponent will avoid occupied habitat where palmate-bracted bird’s beak has been located within any of the last 15 years (seed viability could be as little as three years and as much as six years, as described in Appendix A, Section A.1.2, Species Description and Life History). The project proponent also will avoid any new occurrences of this species identified during planning-level surveys. Avoidance will require a 250-foot setback from the occupied habitat, or greater distance depending on site-specific topography to avoid hydrologic effects. A shorter buffer distance may apply if is determined to avoid effects and is approved by the Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFW. Mortality of palmate-bracted bird’s beak individuals will be avoided, except as needed through management activities that provide an overall benefit to the species.
AMM12, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The project proponent will retain a qualified biologist who is familiar with valley elderberry longhorn beetle and evidence of its presence (i.e., exit holes in elderberry shrubs) to map all elderberry shrubs in and within 100 feet of the project footprint with stems that are greater than one inch in diameter at ground level. To avoid take of valley elderberry longhorn beetle fully, the project proponent will maintain a buffer of at least 100 feet from any elderberry shrubs with stems greater than one inch in diameter at ground level. AMM1, Establish Buffers, above, describes circumstances in which a lesser buffer may be applied. For elderberry shrubs that cannot be avoided with a designated buffer distance as described above, the qualified biologist will quantify the number of stems one inch or greater in diameter to be affected, and the presence or absence of exit holes.
The Conservancy will use this information to determine the number of plants or cuttings to plant on a riparian restoration site to help offset the loss, consistent with Section 6.4.2.4.1, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. Additionally, prior to construction, the project proponent will transplant elderberry shrubs identified within the project footprint that cannot be avoided.
Transplantation will only occur if a shrub cannot be avoided and, if indirectly affected, the indirect effects would otherwise result in the death of stems or the entire shrub. If the project proponent chooses, in coordination with a qualified biologist, not to transplant the shrub because the activity would not likely result in death of stems of the shrub, then the qualified biologist will monitor the shrub annually for a five-year monitoring period. The monitoring period may be reduced with concurrence from the wildlife agencies if the latest research and best available information at the time indicates that a shorter monitoring period is warranted. If death of stems at le ast one inch in diameter occurs within the monitoring period, and the qualified biologist determines that the shrub is sufficiently healthy to transplant, the project proponent will transplant the shrub as described in the following paragraph, in coordination with the qualified biologist. If the shrub dies during the monitoring period, or the qualified biologist determines that the shrub is no longer healthy enough to survive transplanting, then the Conservancy will offset the shrub loss consistent with the preceding paragraph.
The project proponent will transplant the shrubs into a location in the HCP/NCCP reserve system that has been approved by the Conservancy. Elderberry shrubs outside the project footprint but within the 100-foot buffer will not be transplanted.
April 2018 Yolo HCP/NCCP Final Environmental Im pact Statement/Environmental Impact Report C-4
U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Yolo Habitat Conservancy Appendix C Transplanting will follow the following measures:
1. Monitor: A qualified biologist will be on-site for the duration of the transplanting of the elderberry shrubs to ensure the effects on elderberry shrubs are minimized.
2. Timing: The project proponent will transplant elderberry plants when the plants are dormant, approximately November through the first two weeks of February, after they have lost their leaves.
Transplanting during the non-growing season will reduce shock to the plant and increase transplantation success.
3. Transplantation procedure:
a. Cut the plant back three to six feet from the ground or to 50 percent of its height (whichever is taller) by removing branches and stems above this height. Replant the trunk and stems measuring one inch or greater in diameter. Remove leaves that remain on the plants. b. Relocate plant to approved location in the reserve system, and replant as described in Section
6.4.2.4.1, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle.
AMM13, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of California Tiger Salamander. The project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to identify any suitable aquatic and upland habitats for California salamander (as defined in Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts) present in and within 500 feet of the project footprint during planning-level surveys. The qualified biologist will also assess whether critical habitat could be affected by the covered activity.
Except for habitat management and enhancement, all covered activities will provide a 500-foot setback from aquatic California tiger salamander habitat. If a covered activity is outside the Dunnigan Creek Unit of California tiger salamander critical habitat and, as designed, will not avoid aquatic habitat by at least 500 feet, the project proponent will either conduct visual and dip-net surveys, consistent with CDFW protocol, during the period for November 1 to May 15 (California Department of Fish and Game 2003) or assume presence. If the species is present or assumed to be present, the covered activity will not remove aquatic habitat until at least four new occupied breeding pools are discovered or established in the Plan Area and protected in the Plan Area. After the four new occupied breeding pools are protected, and with concurrence of USFWS and CDFW, up to three breeding pools may be affected. The breeding habitat may not be removed if USFWS and CDFW determine that the covered activity would remove a significant occurrence of this species that could be necessary for maintaining the genetic diversity or regional distribution of the species.
This AMM applies to California tiger salamander aquatic habitat and surrounding uplands, as defined by reference to the setbacks described above; it does not apply to cultivated agricultural lands (i.e., agricultural lands other than grazing lands) or other low-value upland habitat for California tiger salamander.
AMM14, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Western Pond Turtle. There are no specific design requirements for western pond turtle habitat, however, project proponents must follow design requirements for the valley foothill riparian and lacustrine and riverine natural communities described in AMMs 9 and 10, which require a 100-foot (minimum) permanent buffer zone from the canopy drip-line (the farthest edge on the ground where water will drip from the tree canopy, based on the outer boundary of the tree canopy). If modeled upland habitat will be impacted, a qualified biologist must be present and will assess the likelihood of western pond turtle nests occurring in the disturbance area (based on sun exposure, soil conditions, and other species habitat requirements).
If a qualified biologist determines that there is a moderate to high likelihood of western pond turtle nests within the disturbance area, the qualified biologist will monitor all initial ground disturbing activity for nests that may be unearthed during the disturbance, and will move out of harm’s way any turtles or hatchlings found.
Yolo HCP/NCCP Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report April 2018 C-5
Appendix C U.S. Fish and Wildli fe and Yolo Habitat Conservancy AMM15, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Giant Garter Snake. The project proponent will avoid effects on areas where planning-level surveys indicate the presence of suitable habitat for giant garter snake. To avoid effects on giant garter snake aquatic habitat, the project proponent will conduct no in- water/in-channel activity and maintain a permanent 200-foot non-disturbance buffer from the outer edge of potentially occupied aquatic habitat. If the project proponent cannot avoid effects of construction activities, the project proponent will implement the measures below to minimize effects of construction projects (measures for maintenance activities are described after the following bulleted list). Conduct preconstruction clearance surveys using USFWS-approved methods within 24 hours prior to construction activities within identified giant garter snake aquatic and adjacent upland habitat. If construction activities stop for a period of two weeks or more, conduct another preconstruction clearance survey within 24 hours prior to resuming construction activity. Restrict all construction activity involving disturbance of giant garter snake habitat to the snake’s active season, May 1 through October 1. During this period, the potential for direct mortality is reduced because snakes are expected to move and avoid danger.
In areas where construction is to take place, encourage giant garter snakes to leave the site on their own by dewatering all irrigation ditches, canals, or other aquatic habitat (i.e., removing giant garter snake aquatic habitat) between April 15 and September 30. Dewatered habitat must remain dry, with no water puddles remaining, for at least 15 consecutive days prior to excavating or filling of the habitat. If a site cannot be completely dewatered, netting and salvage of giant garter snake prey items may be necessary to discourage use by snakes.
Provide environmental awareness training for construction personnel, as approved by the Conservancy.
Training may consist of showing a video prepared by a qualified biologist, or an in-person presentation by a qualified biologist. In addition to the video or in-person presentation, training may be supplemented with the distribution of approved brochures and other materials that describe resources protected under the Yolo HCP/NCCP and methods for avoiding effects.
A qualified biologist will prepare a giant garter snake relocation plan which must be approved by the Conservancy prior to work in giant garter snake habitat. The qualified biologist will base the relocation plan on criteria provided by CDFW or USFWS, through the Conservancy. If a live giant garter snake is encountered during construction activities, immediately notify the project’s biological monitor and USFWS and CDFW. The monitor will stop construction in the vicinity of the snake, monitor the snake, and allow the snake to leave on its own. The monitor will remain in the area for the remainder of the work day to ensure the snake is not harmed or, if it leaves the site, does not return. If the giant garter snake does not leave on its own, the qualified biologist will relocate the snake consistent with the relocation plan described above.
Employ the following management practices to minimize disturbances to habitat:
Install temporary fencing to identify and protect adjacent marshes, wetlands, and ditches from encroachment from construction equipment and personnel. Maintain water quality and limit construction runoff into wetland areas through the use of hay bales, filter fences, vegetative buffer strips, or other accepted practices. No plastic, monofilament, jute, or similar erosion-control matting that could entangle snakes or other wildlife will be permitted.
Ongoing maintenance covered activities by local water and flood control agencies typically involve removal of vegetation, debris, and sediment from water conveyance canals as well as resloping, rocking, and stabilizing the canals that serve agricultural water users. Maintenance of these conveyance facilities can typically occur only from mid-January through April when conveyance canals and ditches are not in service by the agency, although some drainages are used for storm conveyance during the winter and are wet all year. This timing April 2018 Yolo HCP/NCCP Final Environmental Im pact Statement/Environmental Impact Report C-6
U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Yolo Habitat Conservancy Appendix C is during the giant garter snake’s inactive period. This is when snakes may be using underground burrows and are most vulnerable to take because they are unable to move out of harm’s way. Maintenance activities, therefore, will be limited to the giant garter snake’s active season (May 1 to October 1) when possible. All personnel involved in maintenance activities within giant garter snake habitat will first participate in environmental awareness training for giant garter snake, as described above for construction-related activities. To minimize the take of giant garter snake, the local water or flood control agency will limit maintenance of conveyance structures located within modeled giant garter snake habitat (Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts) to clearing one side along at least 80 percent of the linear distance of canals and ditches during each maintenance year (e.g., the left bank of a canal is maintained in the first year and the right bank in the second year). To avoid collapses when resloping canal and ditch banks composed of heavy clay soils, clearing will be limited to one side of the channel during each maintenance year.
For channel maintenance activities conducted within modeled habitat for giant garter snake, the project proponent will place removed material in existing dredged sites along channels where prior maintenance dredge disposal has occurred. For portions of channels that do not have previously used spoil disposal sites and where surveys have been conducted to confirm that giant garter snakes are not present, removed materials may be placed along channels in areas that are not occupied by giant garter snake and where materials will not re-enter the canal because of stormwater runoff.
Modifications to this AMM may be made with the approval of the Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFW.
AMM16, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Swainson’s Hawk and White-Tailed Kite. The project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to conduct planning-level surveys and identify any nesting habitat present within 1,320 feet of the project footprint. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas.
If a construction project cannot avoid potential nest trees (as determined by the qualified biologist) by 1,320 feet, the project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for active nests consistent, with guidelines provided by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000), between March 15 and August 30, within 15 days prior to the beginning of the construction activity. The results of the survey will be submitted to the Conservancy and CDFW. If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, a 1,320-foot initial temporary nest disturbance buffer shall be established. If project related activities within the temporary nest disturbance buffer are determined to be necessary during the nesting season, then the qualified biologist will monitor the nest and will, along with the project proponent, consult with CDFW to determine the best course of action necessary to avoid nest abandonment or take of individuals. Work may be allowed only to proceed within the temporary nest disturbance buffer if Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite are not exhibiting agitated behavior, such as defensive flights at intruders, getting up from a brooding position, or flying off the nest, and only with the agreement of CDFW and USFWS. The designated on-site biologist/monitor shall be on-site daily while construction-related activities are taking place within the 1,320-foot buffer and shall have the authority to stop work if raptors are exhibiting agitated behavior. Up to 20 Swainson’s hawk nest trees (documented nesting within the last 5 years) may be removed during the permit term, but they must be removed when not occupied by Swainson’s hawks.
For covered activities that involve pruning or removal of a potential Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite nest tree, the project proponent will conduct preconstruction surveys that are consistent with the guidelines provided by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000). If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, no tree pruning or removal of the nest tree will occur during the period between March 1 and August 30 within 1,320 feet of an active nest, unless a qualified biologist determines that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active.
AMM17, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo. The project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to conduct planning-level surveys and assess whether habitat for western yellow-billed cuckoo (as defined in Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts) is present within 500 feet of covered activities. If habitat is present, the project proponent will redesign the project to avoid or minimize activities within 500 feet of western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat. If the activity will encroach within Yolo HCP/NCCP Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report April 2018 C-7
Appendix C U.S. Fish and Wildli fe and Yolo Habitat Conservancy 500 feet of habitat and there are no breeding (or nesting) season records for the species within one-quarter mile of the covered activity within the previous three years, a qualified biologist will conduct planning-level surveys for active nests, consistent with USFWS protocol (Appendix N), during the period from June 1 to August 30. Operations and maintenance activities that do not occur during the breeding season (June 1 to August 30) and do not remove western yellow-billed cuckoo habitat are not required to conduct surveys or record searches; no further avoidance or minimization is necessary for such activities.
If an occupied territory is discovered during planning-level surveys, or there is a record of the species occurring within one-quarter mile of the covered activity within the previous three years, the project proponent will design the project to avoid activities within 500 feet of suitable habitat, unless the Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFW approve a shorter distance.
If an activity occurs within 500 feet of suitable habitat during the breeding season, regardless of whether or not a qualified biologist detected the species during planning-level surveys or there are records for the species in the area, a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys that are consistent with USFWS protocol (Appendix N) during the same season when the activity will occur. If the biologist finds active territories (i.e., presence of a singing male), the project proponent will avoid activity within 500 feet of suitable habitat that is contiguous with the territory from June 1 to August 30. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas.
AMM18, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Western Burrowing Owl. The project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to conduct planning-level surveys and identify western burrowing owl habitat (as defined in Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts) within or adjacent to (i.e., within 500 feet of) a covered activity. If habitat for this species is present, additional surveys for the species by a qualified biologist are required, consistent with CDFW guidelines (Appendix L).
If burrowing owls are identified during the planning-level survey, the project proponent will minimize activities that will affect occupied habitat as follows. Occupied habitat is considered fully avoided if the project footprint does not impinge on a nondisturbance buffer around the suitable burrow. For occupied burrowing owl nest burrows, this nondisturbance buffer could range from 150 to 1,500 feet (Table 4-2, Recommended Restricted Activity Dates and Setback Distances by Level of Disturbance for Burrowing Owls), depending on the time of year and the level of disturbance, based on current guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 2012). The Yolo HCP/NCCP generally defines low, medium, and high levels of disturbances of burrowing owls as follows.
Low: Typically 71-80 dB, generally characterized by the presence of passenger vehicles, small gas- powered engines (e.g., lawn mowers, small chain saws, portable generators), and high-tension power lines. Includes electric hand tools (except circular saws, impact wrenches and similar). Management and enhancement activities would typically fall under this category. Human activity in the immediate vicinity of burrowing owls would also constitute a low level of disturbance, regardless of the noise levels. Moderate: Typically 81-90 dB, and would include medium- and large-sized construction equipment, such as backhoes, front end loaders, large pumps and generators, road graders, dozers, dump trucks, drill rigs, and other moderate to large diesel engines. Also includes power saws, large chainsaws, pneumatic drills and impact wrenches, and large gasoline-powered tools. Construction activities would normally fall under this category.
High: Typically 91-100 dB, and is generally characterized by impacting devices, jackhammers, compression (“jake”) brakes on large trucks, and trains. This category includes both vibratory and impact pile drivers (smaller steel or wood piles) such as used to install piles and guard rails, and large pneumatic tools such as chipping machines. It may also include large diesel and gasoline engines, especially if in concert with other impacting devices. Felling of large trees (defined as dominant or subdominant trees in mature forests), truck horns, yarding tower whistles, and muffled or underground April 2018 Yolo HCP/NCCP Final Environmental Im pact Statement/Environmental Impact Report C-8
U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Yolo Habitat Conservancy Appendix C explosives are also included. Very few covered activities are expected to fall under this category, but some construction activities may result in this level of disturbance.
The project proponent may qualify for a reduced buffer size, based on existing vegetation, human development, and land use, if agreed upon by CDFW and USFWS (California Department of Fish and Game 2012).
Table 4-21 Recommended Restricted Activity Dates and Setback Distances by Level of Disturbance for Burrowing Owls
Time of Year
Level of Disturbance (feet) from Occupied Burrows
Low Medium High
April 1–August 15 600 1,500 1,500
August 16–October 15 600 600 1,500
October 16–March 31 150 300 1,500
Notes: 1 Table number corresponds to the numbering provided in the HCP/NCCP.
Source: Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2018
If the project does not fully avoid direct and indirect effects on nesting sites (i.e., if the project cannot adhere to the buffers described above), the project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys and document the presence or absence of western burrowing owls that could be affected by the covered activity. Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, the qualified biologist will conduct the preconstruction surveys within three days prior to ground disturbance in areas identified in the planning-level surveys as having suitable burrowing owl burrows, consistent with CDFW preconstruction survey guidelines (Appendix L, Take Avoidance Surveys). The qualified biologist will conduct the preconstruction surveys three days prior to ground disturbance. Time lapses between ground disturbing activities will trigger subsequent surveys prior to ground disturbance.
If the biologist finds the site to be occupied
1 by western burrowing owls during the breeding season
(February 1 to August 31), the project proponent will avoid all nest sites, based on the buffer distances described above, during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young (occupation includes individuals or family groups that forage on or near the site following fledging).
Construction may occur inside of the disturbance buffer during the breeding season if the nest is not disturbed and the project proponent develops an AMM plan that is approved by the Conservancy, CDFW, and USFWS prior to project construction, based on the following criteria:
The Conservancy, CDFW, and USFWS approves the AMM plan provided by the project proponent. A qualified biologist monitors the owls for at least three days prior to construction to determine baseline nesting and foraging behavior (i.e., behavior without construction). The same qualified biologist monitors the owls during construction and finds no change in owl nesting and foraging behavior in response to construction activities. If the qualified biologist identifies a change in owl nesting and foraging behavior as a result of construction activities, the qualified biologist will have the authority to stop all construction related activities within the non-disturbance buffers described above. The qualified biologist will report this information to the Conservancy, CDFW, and USFWS within 24 hours, and the Conservancy will require 1 Occupancy of burrowing owl habitat during preconstruction surveys is confirmed at a site when at least one burrowing owl or sign (fresh whitewash, fresh pellets, feathers, or nest ornamentation) is observed at or near a burrow entrance.
Yolo HCP/NCCP Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report April 2018 C-9
I
I
I
Appendix C U.S. Fish and Wildli fe and Yolo Habitat Conservancy that these activities immediately cease within the non-disturbance buffer. Construction cannot resume within the buffer until the adults and juveniles from the occupied burrows have moved out of the project site, and the Conservancy, CDFW, and USFWS agree.
If monitoring indicates that the nest is abandoned prior to the end of nesting season and the burrow is no longer in use by owls, the project proponent may remove the nondisturbance buffer, only with concurrence from CDFW and USFWS. If the burrow cannot be avoided by construction activity, the biologist will excavate and collapse the burrow in accordance with CDFW’s 2012 guidelines to prevent reoccupation after receiving approval from the wildlife agencies.
If evidence of western burrowing owl is detected outside the breeding season (September 1 to January 31), the project proponent will establish a non-disturbance buffer around occupied burrows, consistent with Table 4-2, as determined by a qualified biologist. Construction activities within the disturbance buffer are allowed if the following criteria are met to prevent owls from abandoning important overwintering sites:
A qualified biologist monitors the owls for at least three days prior to construction to determine baseline foraging behavior (i.e., behavior without construction). The same qualified biologist monitors the owls during construction and finds no change in owl foraging behavior in response to construction activities.
If there is any change in owl roosting and foraging behavior as a result of construction activities, these activities will cease within the buffer.
If the owls are gone for at least one week, the project proponent may request approval from the Conservancy, CDFW, and USFWS for a qualified biologist to excavate and collapse usable burrows to prevent owls from reoccupying the site if the burrow cannot be avoided by construction activities. The qualified biologist will install one-way doors for a 48-hour period prior to collapsing any potentially occupied burrows. After all usable burrows are excavated, the buffer will be removed and construction may continue.
Monitoring must continue as described above for the nonbreeding season as long as the burrow remains active.
A qualified biologist will monitor the site, consistent with the requirements described above, to ensure that buffers are enforced and owls are not disturbed. Passive relocation (i.e., exclusion) of owls has been used in the past in the Plan Area to remove and exclude owls from active burrows during the nonbreeding season (Trulio 1995). Exclusion and burrow closure will not be conducted during the breeding season for any occupied burrow. If the Conservancy determines that passive relocation is necessary, the project proponent will develop a burrowing owl exclusion plan in consultation with CDFW biologists. The methods will be designed as described in the species monitoring guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 2012) and consistent with the most up-to-date checklist of passive relocation techniques
2. This may include the
installation of one-way doors in burrow entrances by a qualified biologist during the nonbreeding season.
These doors will be in place for 48 hours and monitored twice daily to ensure that the owls have left the burrow, after which time the biologist will collapse the burrow to prevent reoccupation. Burrows will be excavated using hand tools. During excavation, an escape route will be maintained at all times. This may include inserting an artificial structure, such as piping, into the burrow to prevent collapsing until the entire burrow can be excavated and it can be determined that no owls are trapped inside the burrow. The Conservancy may allow other methods of passive or active relocation, based on best available science, if approved by the wildlife agencies. Artificial burrows will be constructed prior to exclusion and will be created less than 300 feet from the existing burrows on lands that are protected as part of the reserve system. 2 The Conservancy will maintain a checklist of passive relocation techniques. CDFW will approve the initial list, and the Conservancy will update as needed in coordination with CDFW.
April 2018 Yolo HCP/NCCP Final Environmental Im pact Statement/Environmental Impact Report C-10
U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Yolo Habitat Conservancy Appendix C AMM19, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Least Bell’s vireo. The project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to conduct planning-level surveys and determine if habitat for least Bell’s vireo (as defined in Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts) is present within 500 feet of covered activities. If habitat is present, the project proponent will redesign the project to avoid or minimize activities within 500 feet of least Bell’s vireo habitat. If the activity will encroach within 500 feet of habitat and there are no breeding season records for the species within one-quarter mile of the covered activity within the previous three years, the qualified biologist will conduct planning-level surveys for active territories, consistent with USFWS (2001) guidelines, during the breeding season (April 1 to July 15). Operations and maintenance activities that do not occur during the breeding season and do not affect least Bell’s vireo habitat are not required to conduct surveys or record searches, and no further avoidance or minimization is necessary for such activities. If an occupied territory is discovered during planning-level surveys, or there is a record of the species occurring within one-quarter mile of the covered activity within the previous three years, the project proponent will design the project to avoid activities within 500 feet of suitable habitat, unless the Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFW approve a shorter distance. If an activity occurs within 500 feet of suitable habitat during the breeding season, regardless of whether or not the species was detected during planning-level surveys or there are records for the species in the area, a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys, consistent with USFWS (2001) guidelines, during the same season when the activity will occur. If active territories are found, the project proponent will avoid activity within 500 feet of the habitat from April 1 to July 15. This buffer may be reduced with approval from the Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFW. The project proponent will avoid disturbance of previous least Bell’s vireo territories (up to three years since known nest activity) during the breeding season, unless the disturbance is to maintain public safety. Least Bell’s vireo uses previous territories; disturbance during the breeding season may preclude birds from using existing unoccupied territories.
The required buffer may be reduced in areas where barriers or topographic relief features are adequate for protecting the nest from excessive noise or other disturbance. Conservancy staff members will coordinate with the wildlife agencies and evaluate exceptions to the minimum nondisturbance buffer distance on a case-by-case basis. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas. If occupied territories are identified, a qualified biologist will monitor construction activities in the vicinity of all active territories to ensure that covered activities do not affect nest success.
AMM20, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Bank Swallow. The project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to identify and quantify (in acres) bank swallow nesting habitat (as defined in Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts) within 500 feet of the project footprint. If a 500-foot buffer from nesting habitat cannot be maintained, the qualified biologist will check records maintained by the Conservancy and CDFW to determine if bank swallow nesting colonies have been active on the site within the previous five years. If there are no records of nesting bank swallows on the site, the qualified biologist will conduct visual surveys during the period from March 1 to August 31 to determine if a nesting colony is present.
For operations and maintenance activities or other temporary activities that do not remove nesting habitat and occur outside the nesting season (September 1 to February 28), it is not necessary to conduct a record search, planning and preconstruction surveys, or any additional avoidance measures. If activities will occur during the nesting season, surveys will be necessary as for other covered activities, but the 500-foot survey distance and buffer distance may be reduced upon Conservancy and wildlife agency approval based on site- specific conditions, such as the level of noise and disturbance generated by the activity, the duration of the activity, and the presence of visual and noise buffers (e.g., vegetation, structures) between the activity and the nesting colony.
Yolo HCP/NCCP Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report April 2018 C-11
Appendix C U.S. Fish and Wildli fe and Yolo Habitat Conservancy If an active bank swallow colony is present or has been present within the last 5 years within the planning- level survey area, the Conservancy, USFWS and CDFW will be notified in writing within 15 working days, and the project proponent will design the project to avoid adverse effects within 500 feet of the colony site(s), unless a shorter distance is approved by the Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFW, based on site-specific conditions such as visual barriers (trees or structures) between the activity and the colony. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas.
The reserve system management plan including bank swallow habitat will provide examples of additional measures that may apply to activities on reserve system lands to avoid and minimize effects on bank swallow.
AMM21, Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Tricolored Blackbird. The project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to identify and quantify (in acres) tricolored blackbird nesting and foraging habitat (as defined in Appendix A, Covered Species Accounts) within 1,300 feet of the footprint of the covered activity. If a 1,300-foot buffer from nesting habitat cannot be maintained, the qualified biologist will check records maintained by the Conservancy (which will include CNDDB data, and data from the tricolored blackbird portal) to determine if tricolored blackbird nesting colonies have been active in or within 1,300 feet of the project footprint during the previous five years. If there are no records of nesting tricolored blackbirds on the site, the qualified biologist will conduct visual surveys to determine if an active colony is present, during the period from March 1 to July 30, consistent with protocol described by Kelsey (2008).
Operations and maintenance activities or other temporary activities that do not remove nesting habitat and occur outside the nesting season (March 1 to July 30) do not need to conduct planning or construction surveys or implement any additional avoidance measures.
If an active tricolored blackbird colony is present or has been present within the last five years within the planning-level survey area, the project proponent will design the project to avoid adverse effects within 1,300 feet of the colony site(s), unless a shorter distance is approved by the Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFW. If a shorter distance is approved, the project proponent will still maintain a 1,300-foot buffer around active nesting colonies during the nesting season but may apply the approved lesser distance outside the nesting season. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas.
Avoidance and Minimization Measures within the Reserve System Reserve system activities, including agricultural activities as described in Appendix M, Yolo County Agricultural Practices, have the potential to result in take of covered species. Covered species potentially affected by ongoing reserve system activities, and measures to avoid and minimize these effects, are described below. Prohibited land uses and other restrictions on reserve lands will be stipulated in the conservation easements, as described in Section 7.5.5.3.2, Minimum Restrictions within a Yolo HCP/NCCP Conservation Easement. Management practices on reserve lands will be developed with landowners, further described in the management plans, and approved by the wildlife agencies. The species included below are the covered species most likely to be affected by covered activities in the reserve system because they are most likely to occur on cultivated lands. Cultivated lands consist of working landscapes on which agricultural activities take place on a regular basis. The potential scenarios described below for which take could occur are not exhaustive, however, and site-specific conditions could warrant different or additional measures to avoid and minimize take of the covered species found on cultivated lands that will count toward conservation commitments. The Conservancy will describe these avoidance and minimization measures as applicable in site-specific conservation easements or management plans that the wildlife agencies will approve. For bank swallow, agricultural practices on reserve system lands will comply with AMM20, Bank Swallow, above.
April 2018 Yolo HCP/NCCP Final Environmental Im pact Statement/Environmental Impact Report C-12