The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOroville Facilities Project - Request for Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement & Evaluation of Adequacy of 2017 EIS ADMINISTRATION OCT 2 3 2017 OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA PIERCE ATWOOD -, MATTHEW D. MANAHAN Merrill's Wharf 254 CommerciM Street Portland, ME 04101 P 207.791.118,9 F 207.791.135�0 C 207.807.4653 mmanahan@pIerceatwoodxorn pierceatwood.coni October 19, 2017 Admitted in: MA, ME, NH Ms. Kimberly Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426 RE: OROVILLE FACILITIES PROJECT (OROVILLE DAM) — FERC No. 2100 REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Dear Secretary Bose: On behalf of Butte County, California, I request that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Supplemental EIS) prior to issuing a long-term operating license for the California Department of Water Resources (California DWR) Oroville Facilities Project (FERC No. 2100). The Final EIS (FERC/FEIS-0202F) Was issued on May 18, 2007, over ten years ago, and since that time the Project has been operating on annual licenses. The 2007 EIS, however, did not relieve FERC of its continuing duties under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To the contrary, "NEPA requires agencies to take a hard look at the environmental consequences of their proposed projects even after an EIS has been prepared." Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman, 81 F.3,d 437, 443 (4th Cir, 1996) (finding that the Army Corps of Engineers violated NEPA by failing to take a hard look at the problem of zebra mussel infestation resulting from a dam project). Relying on the outdated EIS to support a long-term licensing decision Without considering in a Supplemental EIS new information bearing upon the Project and its impacts would be inconsistent with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance on NEPA as wells as FERC's own hydropower relicensing guidelines. FERC has a continuing duty to gather and evaluate new information relevant to the environmental impact of its actions. See Warm Springs Dam Task Force v. Gribble, 621 F.2d 1017, 1023 (9th Cir. 1980) (finding that new information presented to the Army Corps of Engineers raised sufficient environmental concerns to require the Corps to take another PORTLAND,ME BOSTON,MA PORTSMOUTH,NH PROVIDENCE,RI AUGUSTA,ME STOCKHOLM,SE WASHINGTON,DC Ms. Kimberly Bose October 19, 2017 Page 2 hard look at the issues affecting a dam project, and that the Corps' decision not to file a supplemental EIS on the basis of information available prior to trial was not reasonable).' It is incumbent on FERC here to evaluate new information and the existing EIS to determine whether it requires supplementation. On behalf of Butte County, I am submitting the enclosed report, Evaluation of the Adequacy of the 20077 EIS to Support FERC's NEPA Obligations Regarding .issuing a Long-Term Operating License for the Oroville Facilities Project(FERC No. 2100), in support of our request for a Supplemental EIS. Supplementation plainly is required here as there are significant new circumstances and information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the Project and its impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii). See also Friends of the Clearwater v. Dombeck, 222 F.3d 552, 557-59 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding that the Forest Service violated NEPA when it failed timely to prepare, or sufficiently evaluate the need for, a supplemental EIS in light of, inter alfa, seven new sensitive species designations). The significant new circumstances and information bearing on the Project are described in the enclosed report and described briefly below. Since the 2007 EIS was prepared, for example, several threatened and endangered species have been listed and/or found within the Project area, including the yellow-billed cuckoo, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, and the California tiger salamander. In addition to running afoul of NEPA, issuing a long-term license without preparing a Supplemental EIS would also potentially be in violation of, among others, rules and regulations related to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. By way of further example, on December 5, 2016, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued an ESA Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Recommendations for Relicensing the Oroville Facilities Hydroelectric Project. This correspondence was Issued In response to a July 31, 2007, letter from FERC requesting Initiation of consultation with NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Coming almost 10 years after the request for consultation, NMFS concludes that the Project will adversely affect the EFH of Pacific Coast Salmon and recommends several conservation measures. Such consultation should have started prior to. finalizing the EIS and is further evidence that FERC's agency and stakeholder consultation process in this case was inconsistent with CEQ NEPA guidelines and FERC's own hydropower relicensing guidelines. Accordingly, in addition to NEPA violations, issuing a long-term license without preparing a Supplemental EIS may also be In violation of the Essential Fish 'Where FERC is presented with new information bearing on a Project, It must take such a "hard look," regardless of its eventual assessment of the significance of that information. See Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 385 (1989) (finding that the Army Corps had a duty to take a hard look at proffered evidence in determining whether to prepare a supplemental EIS). "Absent exceptional circumstances, an agency decision not to prepare a supplemental EIS will be upheld only where the agency carefully evaluated the impact of the new information, and its decision is supported by a rational explanation or additional data." Sierra Club v. Marsh, 714 F. Supp. 539, 571 (D. Me. 1989) (citing Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council). CW6349168A) Ms. Kimberly Bose October 19, 2017 Page 3 Habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended. Butte County also believes that the 2007 EIS is materially deficient in terms of its consideration of the socio-economic impacts of Project operation on its residents.z The 2007 EIS failed to adequately consider the social and economic impacts of Project operation on the community, and what analysis was done is materially out-of-date pursuant to CEQ guidance governing when studies supporting NEPA documents should be updated (i.e., generally if they are more than five years old). The 2007 EIS also failed to address the foreseeable failure of the dam's main and emergency spillways, which occurred in February 2017 and has resulted in significant social, economic, and environmental impacts to the community. As this type of failure was predicted by knowledgeable experts, it should have been more thoroughly addressed in the 2007 EIS. Among other things, therefore, the Supplemental EIS should consider the impacts associated with the 2017 failure as well as the socio-economic and environmental impacts of future failures during the term of the next long-term operating license. For these reasons, Butte County respectfully requests that the Commission initiate a hearing on this request for a Supplemental EIS, as authorized by 18 C.F.R. § 385, Subpart E. See also 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)(1)(ii). FERC should also provide an opportunity for discovery as authorized by 18 C.F.R. § 385, Subpart D. Please advise me at your earliest convenience of FERC`s intentions regarding how it intends to meet its NEPA, ESA, and EFH obligations, among others, associated with the pending long-terra license application for the Oroville Facilities Project. Sincerely, Matthew D. Manahan Enclosure cc: Bruce S. Alpert, County Counsel, Butte County Service List Z 2017 Updates to Report on the Operational Impacts of the Oroville Facilities Project on Butte County and Socio-,Economic Impacts of the Oroville Facilities on Butte County, California. Update provided by Paul Hahn, Chief Administrative Officer, Butte County, California. {W6344168.4} CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding. Dated at Portland, Maine this day; October 19, 2017. Z44 /4i--. I Matthew D. Manahan Pierce Atwood LLP 254 Commercial Street Portland, ME 04101 207-791-1.1.89 Attorneys for Butte County, California {W634916SAI 99VV uli� I CES111, N (-1""'+r ° , EVALUATION OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE 2007 EIS TO SUPPORT FERCS NEPA OBLIGATIONS REGARDING ISSUING A LONG-TERM OPERATING LICENSE FOR THE OR VILLE FACILITIES PROJECT (FERC NO. 2100) FOR BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 25 COUNTY CENTER ROAD QROVILLE, CA 96965-3380 OCTOBER 2017 JN: 10296..003 Y Report Prepared By: CES, Inc. - Pa Box 639 465 South Main. Street Brewer, Maine 04412 207.969.4624 r1 i r r;/ r✓!/ .r;/iii/i / i. / �//rr i � a„t /,�,,,, ! „� /;� r/ ,,,,,, - /,., i, rr rr i / r, q/ 4 � r/i / r/�:r,, 1, r r f IiY Y�"�a.,,IPI r, �,� N.. P, / Pl + 'I�I I l „I I h ✓ ,r'JG' 0 Y d ,N.H 1 r7 1 7J rRJ�I++�.,��G�yi%!/> ,pf ��IJ/1,1�Y/alY/IG��/IiJill�1,��"�1+1+,+Zai GG�97C�1„fNIll�%1,�ir)Y,/r�l)/)I„Ni(1,7,�i1�/JI!/Y/,/J�^P/11 �P�i��119,�1/�aX�/�Pl�"/ilf�;��tY?7Yb��/'r, � ��r'1.1��/J„i�/1/��I,fr1✓,,,,lJNr�l,,, , ^ �—v�� ' ��"�� . @�.�� X �� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The California Department of Water Resources (DVVR) applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to nelicenuethe OrovNe Facilities Project (FERC No. 2100) on the Feather River in January 2085, FERC'sAltermative Licensing Process (ALP)was used in this hydropower relicensing effort, producing a Settlement Agreement in March 2006 with multiple, but not a H,stakeholder groups. The ALP also produced an applicant-prepared Draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). FERC released its own Final BS for relicensing the project in May 2007 in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA;48CFR§1SBO-15O3). DVVRrequested o5O-yearlicense,but FERC has yet to issue long-term license and the Project has instead been operating for over 18years on what are called annual licenses. It is not dearwbem—and under what circumstances —FER[ intends to issue o long-term license for the Project. Given that it has been over 10 years since FERC's EIS was issued, Butte County asked CES, Inc.,to consider whether the 28O7EIS can berelied ontosupport along-term licensing decision,and tmevaluate the adequacy ofthe 2007 BS with regard to FERC's NEPA obligations. CEG also considered FERCs obligations under the Endangered Species Act[ESA(16U.S.[.§§1S31etseq.)]and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act [Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. §§1801 et seq.)]. CES reviewed studies completed for the QrovD|e FadKties Project as part of the relicensing effort and evaluated which are likely outdated given the time that has passed since the Final EIS was issued. We also considered the implications of the 2017 failure of the primary,(flow control) and emergency spillways as well as updated economic impact data related to the actual financial costs to the County associated with the presence ofthe Orex|||eFacilities Project. Knaddition, CES reviewed regulatory requirements and Council on Environmental Quality ([EQ) gnidehneufor when an EIS should be considered outdated for purposes ufsupporting along-term FERC license. CES concludes that FERC's Final EIS must besupplemented because study documents and the Final E|6 significantly exceed [E{!s thresholds for when NEPA documents should be updated. There are also significant new circumstances and information relevant to social, economic, and environmental concerns and bearing onthe, proposed federal action (i.e, issuing a long-term license) and its impacts [40 CFR §1502.9(c)(1)(Q)]. Preparing a Supplemental EIS would also further the purposes of NEPA [40 CFR §1502.9(o)(2)] by providing an opportunity for agencies,the public, and other interested stakeholders to comment on the proposed action, given the significant new circumstances and information. [ES also concludes that a Supplemental EIS would be consistent with FERC'o obligations under the ESA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. ' JN: 10296,003 1 ` ~� � l�� ' �=~ � ^ �� - CODfeDfs EXECUTIVE SUMMARY—......-- ................................. ................ ------- ...... ---- ........... | INTRODUCTION... ...... ... . ... ... ............................... ..........................--- ............................ ...... .....1 BACKGROUN[) ...... _...... .................................................................................. — ........____...........I NEW CIRCUMSTANCES AND INFORMATION [4OCFR §15O2.EKcK1)(|i)]......... ..........................4 Failure cfthe Emergency Spillway.................................. .........................----.__— ...... ........ ........4 Socio-Economic[Vnditions—_ ....... .......................— ............____................. —.......... ... ........... ..5 Threatened and Endangered Species [Endangered Species Act(16U.S.[, §1531mtseq.)].....____...—5 WOAANMFSBiological Opinion of2O16 [K4agmuson-StevenuAct (16U.S.[ §10Uletseq.)]..................7 EnvironmentalJustice............. ........................................................ ....................... _-----_ ...........7 SettlementAgreement ............ ........ ...... ...... —............ ...................... —....................... ..................9 FURTHERING THE PURPOSES OF NEPA [4UCFR &15O2.9(c)C28 .... .......................................-9 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................... — ........................................................... ............9 APPENDIX prnv|heFacilities Re|iceodmgProgram Federal Emer8yRegu|atoryComrobskonPnojact No.21QOStudy Plan Reports APPENDIX 2017 Updates to "Report on the Operational Impacts of the Oroville Facilities Project on Butte County" and °Soc|o-EcomomicImpacts mfthe OrovN|eFacilities Project on Butte County, California" APPENDIX C U5FVVSinformation for Planning and Consultation (lPa[) Resource List 0rovN|eFacilities Project(FERC No. 21O@) Retrieved October 12, 2017 APPENDIX D Date of Listing of Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitats Under the Federal Endangered Species List CES INTRODUCTION The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to relicense the Oroville Facilities Project (FERC No. 2100) on the Feather River in January 2005. FERC's Alternative Licensing Process (ALP)was used in this hydropower relicensing effort, producing a Settlement Agreement in March 2005 with multiple, but not all,stakeholder groups. The ALP also produced an applicant-prepared Draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). FERC released its own Final EIS for relicensing the project in May 2007 in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA;40 CFR§1500-1508). DWR requested a 50-year license, but FERC has yet to issue a long-term license and the Project has instead been operating for over 10 years on what are called annuallicenses. The Oroville Facilities Project is in Butte County, which has an estimated population of approximately 225,400 people as of 2015 and a county seat in the City of Oroville with a population of approximately 19,000 as of 2017. Butte County is a participant in the relicensing process for the hydroelectric project„ but was not a party to the Settlement Agreement. The County remains a vested stakeholder in the ongoing relicensing process for the Oroville Facilities Project. It is not clear when —and under what circumstances—FERC intends to issue a long-term license for the Project. Given that it has been over 10 years since FERC's EIS was issued, Butte County asked CES, Inc.,.to consider whether the 2007 EIS can be relied on to support a long-term licensing decision,and to evaluate the adequacy of the 2007 EIS with regard to FERC's NEPA obligations. CES also considered FERC's obligations under the Endangered Species Act [ESA(16 U.S.C, §§1531 etseq.)]and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act [Magnuson-Stevens Act(16 U.S.C. §§1801 etseq.)]. CES reviewed studies completed for the Oroville Facilities Project as part of the relicensing effort (Appendix A) and evaluated which are likely outdated given the time that has passed since the Final EIS was issued. We also considered the implications of the 2017 failure of the primary (flow control) and emergency spillways as well as updated economic impact data related to the actual financial costs to the County associated with the presence of the Oroville Facilities Project (Appendix B). In addition, CES reviewed regulatory requirements and Council on Environmental Quality(CECT)guidelines for when an EIS should be considered outdated for purposes of supporting a long-term FERC license. This report presents our findings and explains haw CES concluded, that a Supplemental EIS is required before FERC issues a long-term license for the Oroville Facilities Project. BACKGROUND, The Oroville Facilities Project was developed as part of the California State Water Project,a water storage and delivery system of reservoirs, aqueducts, power plants, and pumping plants. The dam is located on the Feather River and impounds Lake Oroville,the second largest man-made lake in California. The Project includes the Oroville Dam and Reservoir with storage of 3.5 million-acre-feet and surface area of 15,180 acres, Hyatt Pumping-Generating Plant with a capacity of 645 megawatts (MW) at a maximum flow of 16,950 cubic feet per second (cfs), Thermalito Diversion Pool and the Thermalito Diversion Pool Power Plant with a capacity of 3 MW at 615 cfs, Thermalito Forebay and Thermalito Pumping and Generating Plant with a capacity of 11.4 MW at a maximum flow of 17,400 cfs,and the Thermalito Afterbay. The Project was completed in 1968 and,along with other water development projects and historic mining activity, has contributed to altered hydrology and geomorphology of the Feather River and impacted JIB: 10206.003 1 water quality and anadromous fisheries. Oroville Cram, for example, blocks access to 66.9 miles of high quality habitat for anadromous fish.Anadromous fish are now restricted to the Lower Feather River and can seasonally experience high water temperatures and unnatural flows. The Lower Feather River is designated as critical habitat for Central valley spring-run chinook and steelhead under the federal ESA (Appendix D).The Feather River Fish Hatchery was opened in 1967 to mitigate for the loss of habitat from the construction of Oroville Dam (State of California,State Water Resources Control Board,Water Quality Certification, Order WQ 2010-00160). The initial FERC license for the Oroville Facilities Project was issued on February 11, 1957, and expired on January 31, 2007, The DWR, using the ALP, applied for a new federal license to continue generating hydroelectric power in January 2005. As part of the re-licensing process, a Final EIS was issued by FERC on May 18, 2007, over 10 years ago. DWR requested a 50-year license, but FERC has yet to issue a long- term license and the project has instead been operating for over 10 years on what are called annual licenses. Over 150 studies were completed in support of the relicensing effort, the applicant-prepared EIS, and FERC's 2007 Final EIS (Appendix A). Most of these studies were completedin 2002-2004, 13-15 years ago. FERC issued its Final EBS in 2007, even though agency consultation regarding Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and the ESA was ongoing. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (DMFS),for example,was asked by FERC in a letter dated July 31, 2007,after the Final EIS had been issued,to consult regarding Section 7 of the ESA and EFH designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. DMFS did not respond to this request until December 5, 2016, when it concluded that the proposed action (i.e., relicensing the Oroville Facilities Project) "willl adversely affect the EFH of Pacific Coast Salmon." DMFS also concluded that issuing a long- term license would adversely affect ESA-listed species or critical habitat,including California Central valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Central valley spring-run chinook (O. tshawytscha), green sturgeon (Acipensermedirostris), and Sacramento River winter-run Chinook(0, tshawytscha). Since the Final EIS was issued, there have been changes in the ESA, whereby new species and critical habitats have been listed or designated. The yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), for example, was listed as threatened under the ESA in 2014. Critical habitat for this species was designated west of the Oroville Facilities Project on the Sacramento River. While the critical habitat is west of the project area,this species uses wooded habitat with dense cover and water nearby and it is likely that such habitat occurs within the FERC boundary for the Oroville Facilities Project'. In addition,the Sierra Nevada yellow- legged frog(Rana sierroe)was designated as endangered in 2014 and critical habitat, including within the Oroville Facilities Project FERC boundary, was designated in 2016. Critical habitat for the California red- legged frog(Rana draytonii)was also designated within the project area in 2010.. On February 11, 2017, the emergency spillway for Oroville Dam began receiving water for the first time since construction was completed in 1968. Due to the possibility of failure,an evacuation order was given for areas downstream of the dam,which resulted in significant social and economic costs for Butte County. When the spillway did fail, it resulted in damage to the Feather River Fish Hatchery and other foreseeable environmental impacts that were not considered in FERC's Final EIS. 1 Oroville Facilities Relicensing(Project No. 21.00), SP-T2 Progress Summary,SP-T2 Project Effects on special Status Species. Review draft for Oroville Facilities Relicensing Environmental Work Group by California Department of Water Resources, November 2002. JN: 10296.003 2'. Guidance on the NEPA process is provided by CEQ a division of the Executive Office of the Presidentz. Individual federal agencies, like FERC, can provide their own guidance to the NEPA process. With regard to FERC, guidance is also provided regarding such things as the hydropower relicensing process and compliance with the ESA'. CEQ guidance is clear that NEPA documents such as an EIS can become outdated, resulting in the need for a new EIS or, at a minimum, a Supplemental EIS. In general, CEQ recommends re-evaluating any NEPA document or information material to a NEPA document,such as a study,that is more than five years old. CEQfurther recommends updating any material documents greater than 10 years old4. In the case of the Oroville Facilities Project, the EIS and all related study documents that the EIS relied on exceed these thresholds. All federal agencies involved in the NEPA process must have a reevaluation process to incorporate recent and updated information into an EIS to ensure that it is based on accurate and timely data. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),for example, requires reevaluation of project-related studies, including NEPA documents, when there has been little activity on a project or prior to talking final action on a project. The FHWA refers to the reevaluation as an analysis of the changes in a project or existing environment at specified times in the Project [development Process (PDP). The PDP includes multiple decision points such as final design, right-of-way acquisition,and bid letting. Each of these decision points requires the state DOTs and FHWA to reevaluate the NEPA document, NEPA decision, and potentially any related environmental',studies. FERC's obligations regarding updating its EIS before issuing a long-term license for the Oroville Facilities Project are the same as FHWA's. CEQ,regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA are set forth in 40 CFR§§1.500-1508, and requirements for preparing Supplemental EISs are found in §1502.9,specifically: (c)Agencies: (1)Shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if (d)The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns;or (ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. 2 https://ceg.doe.goy/guidance/guidance,html I htt s: www.ferc.gov/i n d ustriesh dro power en-info [icensin g.as a Council on Environmental Quality, Final Guidance for Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA Reviews, 79 FR 249, December 23,2014. 5 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Standing Committee on Environment. Reevaluations of NEPA Documents(Prepared by ICF Consulting),March 2008. JN: 10296.003 3 CESI f, (2J'May also prepare supplements when the agency determines that the purposes of the Act will be furthered by doing so. The remainder of this report focuses on new circumstances and information that demonstrates that FERC is obligated to prepare a Supplemental EIS. Consideration is also given to how a Supplemental EIS would further the purposes of NEPA with regard to FERC issuing a long-term license for the Oroville Facilities Project. NEW CIRCUMSTANCES AND INFORMATION [40 CFR §1502.9(c)(1)(ii)] New circumstances and new information demonstrate that FERC is obligated to prepare a Supplemental EIS prior to issuing a long-term operating license for the Oroville Facilities Project. These circumstances and information include, among others, failure of the primary and emergency spillways, the economic downturn associated with the Great Recession, ongoing financial impacts on Butte County, new listings under the ESA, recent information from NMFS related to EFH and ESA-listed species, the addition of environmental justice criteria to the NEPA process, and lagging implementation of the Settlement Agreement. Failure of the Emergency Spillway On February 7,2017,the primary(flow control)spillway for Oroville Dam failed,followed by failure of the emergency spillway on February 12, 2017, which resulted in the temporary evacuation of over 180,000 people, significant erosion and habitat damage downstream, and evacuation of the Feather River Fish Hatchery. A root cause analysisa determined the failure to be associated) with three factors: design; construction; and operations and maintenance. FERC's Final EIS did not consider in any detail the potential socio-economic or environmental consequences associated with the foreseeable failure of the emergency spillway. Several environmental stakeholders, however,filed a motion with FERC during the relicensing process in 2005 regarding the likely failure of the emergency spillway'. These concerns were,in part, based on a 2002 technical report by the Yuba County Water Agency that described the significant erosion and damage that would be associated with use of the spillway under emergency conditions. The socio-economic and environmental consequences of a spillway failure,while predictable,were not adequately considered in the Final EIS. The 2017 primary and emergency spillway failures,and the associated environmental and socio-economic impacts,constitutes new material circumstances and information that demonstrate that FERC is obligated to prepare a Supplemental EIS. Indeed, the foreseeable scope and magnitude of these impacts suggest that the original EIS was significantly deficient and that a new full EIS, rather than a.Supplemental EIS, is warranted. 6 Robert G. Bea and Tony Johnson, )loot Causes Analyses of the Oroville Clam Gated Spillway Failures and Other Developments(University of California,Berkeley,2017). 'Motion to Intervene of Friends of the River,Sierra Club,and South Yuba River Citizens league in the matter of State of California Dept. of Water Resources, for a new major license, Oroville Division, State Water Facilities, "Oroville Facilities". Document submitted to FERC on October 17,2005. 31 pp. 8 Technical Memorandum on Controlled Surcharge of Lake Oroville for Additional Flood. Control, Yuba-Feather Supplemental Flood Control Project(Costa-Machado Water Act of 2000). Yuba County Water Agency,August 2002. JN: 10296.003 4 ,..,. Socio-Economic Conditions In June of 2017, Butte County prepared updates to the 2006 "Report on the Operational Impacts of the Oroville Facilities Project on Butte County" and the report entitled "Socio-Economic Impacts of the Oroville Facilities Project on Butte County, California", included here as Appendix B.' These analyses are for normal operating conditions and do not include the significant socio-economic costs to the County associated with the 2017 spillway failure. The original reports were submitted to FERC by the County in February of 2006. The updated reports provide current annual costs over a 50-year period for services that the County provides related to the Oroville Facilities Project, including; o Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice Services; • Fire and Rescue Services; • Communications Services; • Public Works—Road Services; • ECIC Services;and • Health and Human Services The 2017 update identified an increase in overall annual costs (over a 50,-year period) for each of the services described. The updated socio-economic impact assessment also provides an update of the calculated"lost taxes"for the 41,000 acres purchased for the Project. The update used three different methodologies for calculating lost taxes,as was used in the original report. The results of the analyses show increases in the"lost taxes" under each of the methods used. While the original 2007 EIS included an analysis of socio-economic impacts related to the proposed action, the socio-economic environment has changed since the EIS was issued. Shortly after the release of the 2007 EIS,for example,the United States experienced what has been described as the"Creat Recession". The effects of this recession had a significant impact on national and regional economies, impacts that continue to impact Butte County and its residents. In addition,the populations of the City of Oroville and Butte County have substantially increased since the 2007 EIS was prepared. The overall financial burdens associated with the operational and socio-economic impacts used in the 2007. EIS do not reflect the current or actual burdens experienced by the County. In addition, the calculated annual 50-year costs are based on 2006 numbers and do not reflect actual current costs. In this regard, the updated socio-economic information constitutes new material circumstances and information that demonstrate that FERC is obligated to prepare a Supplemental EIS.. Threatened and Endangered Species [Endangered Species Act (16 U,S.C. §§1531 et seq.)] There have been several changes to state and federally threatened and endangered species listings for the Project area since the issuance of FERC"s 2007 EIS (Appendix C and D). In 2010, for example, the I Paul Hahn, Updates to "Report on the Operational Impacts of the Oroville Facilities Project on Butte County'and "Socio-Economic Impacts of the Oroville Facilities Project on Butte County, California" (Office of the Chief Administrative officer of Butte County,201.7). JN: 10 96.003 5 CES California tiger salamander(Ambystamo caiifarniense) became listed as threatened in California. In 2014 the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) was listed as federally threatened and the Sierra Nevada yeilow-legged frog(Rana sierrae)was listed as federally endangered. These species are not mentioned in. the EIS for the Oroville Facilities Project, but the following wildlife habitat is located near the Project: 1) the current range of the yellow-billed cuckoo is located where the Oroville Dam spillway empties into the Feather River;2)the current range of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog is within the project boundary; and 3)the current range of the California tiger salamander is approximately 13 miles west and 14 miles south of Oroville Dam along the Feather River. In addition, critical habitat was designated) within the Oroville Facilities Project boundary, near the Upper North Fork, for the federally-threatened California red-legged frog(Rana draytonii) in 2010. A great deal of new information concerning the yellow-billed cuckoo has been developed since the 2007 FERC EIS was completed°. In addition, tools for modeling potential habitats are vastly improved over what was available when endangered species surveys were conducted for the Oroville Facilities Project FERC application in 2002-2004. Dettling et ai. (2015), for example, have developed habitat models that should be applied to habitats within the Oroville Facilities Project FERC boundary to determine the extent of potential habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also recently concluded that dam operation has a substantial cumulative impact on the habitat of yellow-billed cuckoo, when considered with other threats". While specific additional studies for the yellow-billed cuckoo are warranted,this species is just one example of new information and circumstances that mandate updating all threatened and endangered species reports and issuing a Supplemental EIS. While the 2007 EIS mentions the California red-legged frog, changes in designated critical habitat and assessments of the status of the species were published in 2010 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service12. This new information mandates updating threatened and endangeredspecies reports and issuing a Supplemental EIS. The NMFS, as noted above, concluded that issuing a long-term license would adversely affect ESA-listed' fish species or critical habitat,including California Central Valley steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss),Central Valley spring,-run chinook(O.tshawytscha),green sturgeon(.Acipensermedirost'ris),and Sacramento River winter-run chinook(0. tshawytscha). The changes in species listed as threatened or endangered at the state and federal levels, as well as updated critical habitat designations,described above constitute new circumstances and new information that obligate FERC to prepare a Supplemental EIS, if not a completely new EIS. These changes also demonstrate that FERC must undertake additional consultation with, among others, the NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding ESA-listed species. 10 Dettling,Seavy, Howell,and Gardali,2015. Current status of Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo along the Sacramento and Feather Rivers,California. PLoS One 10(4):e0125198:doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125198. 11. Decision to List the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo as a Threatened Species,, Questions and Answers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Sacramento Office,October 2014. " Federal Register Vol.75, No.51, pp. 12816-12959. Jai': 102996.003 6 A W f ..... NOAA NMFS Biological Opinion of 2016 [Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 US.C. §§18611 et seq.)] In December 2016, NOAA issued an Endangered species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, nine years after the initiation of consultation,that included a review of the proposedaction for potential effects on EFH designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Based on the best available scientific and commercial information,NMFS concluded that the proposed action(i.e.,relicensrngthe Oroville Facilities Project)"will adversely affect the EFH of Pacific Coast Salmon." FERC has a statutory obligation under section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide a written response to the submitted report within 30 days of its receipt and priorto start of the action. At this time it does not appear that FERC has prepared and submitted such a response.'s NMFS's 2016 Biological Opinion constitutes new circumstances and information that demonstrate that FERC is obligated to prepare a Supplemental Els. These changes also indicate that FERC, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act„ must undergo additional consultation with the NMFS regarding EFH. Environmental Justice Consideration of"environmental justice"within the NEPA process has substantially increased since FERC's Final EIS was issued in 200714. Environmental justice has been defined' by EPA's Office of Environmental Justice as: "The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations,and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state,local, and tribal programs and policies." Executive Order 12898 and its accompanying memorandum have the primary purpose of ensuring that "each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income popuilations ..." The Executive Order also explicitly called for the application of equal consideration for Native American programs. To meet these goals, the Order specified that each agency develop an agency-wide environmental justice strategy's. Oroville Facilities Biological Opinion(NOAA,2016}. https://www.epa.gov/envi rr nrnentai j ustice/envi ronmenta l-j ustice-and-national-environmental-pol icy-act "https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-executive-carder-12898-federal-actions-add rens-envi ron mental- •ui stice JN: 10296.003 7 CES The Presidential Memorandum that accompanied the Executive Order calls for a variety of actions, four of which were directed at NEPA-related activities, including: 1. Each federal agency must analyze environmental effects, including human health, economic,and social effects,of federal actions,including effects on minority communities and low-income communities,when such analysis is required by NEPA; 2. Mitigation measures outlinedor analyzed in EAs, EISs, or Records of Decision (RODs), whenever feasible, should address significant and adverse environmental effects of proposed federal actions on minority communities and low-income communities; 3. Each federal agency must provide opportunities for community input in the NEPA process, including identifying potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected communities and improving accessibility of public meetings,official documents, and notices to affected communities; and 4. In reviewing other agencies' proposed actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA must ensure that the agencies have fully analyzed environmental effects on minority communities and low-income communities, including human health, social, and. economic effects.is In a memo dated April 19, 2011,to Regional and Assistant Administrators,former Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Cynthia Giles, wrote "Through the Administrator's heightened commitment to and focus on environmental justice, much has been and continues to be learned on how best to achieve this objective...to ensure that the spirit as well as the letter of the Executive Order and Presidential directive is met."17 Butte County has a substantial minority population and specific consideration of environmental justice regarding issuing a long-term operating license for the Oroville Facilities Project is mandated by NEPA guidance that was issued after FERC's 2007 Final EIS. According to current census records,approximately 25 percent of Butte County's population is minority based, including Hispanic or Latino, Asian,American Indian, Black or African American,or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Census records also indicate that minority populations in Butte County have grown significantly since FERC's 2007 Final EIS was issued. In addition to basic socio-economic impacts of project operation on Butte County(see above), FERC must specifically consider how these conditions might be unfairly burdening minority populations. For example, money directly spent by the County due to the presence of the Orovill'e Facilities Project is money that is not available for other purposes, potentially impacting minority populations. Consideration of environmental justice issues was not a priority in FERC's 2007 Final EIS and the need for such analyses to ensure compliance with modern NEPA guidelines mandates preparation of a Supplemental EIS before issuing, a long-term license for the Oroville Facilities Project. In preparing a 16 Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns into EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses, April 1998. 17 Giles, Cynthia (April 19, 2011), Addressing, Environmental Justice through Reviews Conducted Pursuant to the National Environmental Poky Act(NEPA) and Section 309 of the clean Air Act. Memorandum prepared for USEPA Regional Administrators and Assistant Administrators. JN: 10296.003 8 CES Supplemental EIS, modern practices and methodologies used in NEPA reviews, including meaningful engagement with minority communities, must be employed". Settlement Agreement The terms of the Settlement Agreement identify actions to be implemented by DWR that will benefit environmental, recreational, cultural, land use, and engineering and operations resources.These actions represent both new measures and enhancements to existing broad efforts by DWR and other agencies performing a stewardship role of these resources.The Settlement Agreement signatories requested that this comprehensive Settlement Agreement package, which includes proposed benefits outside of FERC's jurisdiction, be used when FERC issues a new license for the Oroville Facilities.19 Programs such as the development of Recreational Management Plan(RMP),and environmental enhancements(e.g.,a Gravel Supplementation and Improvement Plan) and establishing an Ecological Committee, were to be implemented in accordance with proposed timelines beginning at the time of the filing of the Settlement Agreement with the FERC. Under the annual licenses, however, it appears that the terms of the Settlement Agreement and draft license orders have not been fully implemented20. Operating for 10 years under annual licenses was not contemplated by the parties to the Settlement Agreement and constitutes new circumstances that demonstrate that FERC is obligated to prepare a Supplemental EIS prior to issuing a long-term license for the Oroville Facilities Project. FURTHERING THE PURPOSES OF NEPA, [40 CFR §1502.9(c)(2)] In addition to the new circumstances and information discussed above that demonstrate that FERC is obligated to prepare a Supplemental EIS before issuing a long-term license for the Oroville Facilities Project,there are numerous reasons to update the EIS to further the purposes of NEPA, including: • Complying with.CEQ guidelines for implementing NEPA; • Complying with FERC guidelines for hydropower relicensing and preparing NEPA environmental documents; • Complying with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act; • Complying with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Essential Fish Habitat;and • Supplementing the 2007 EIS to be consistent with modern EIS guidelines regarding such topics as environmental justice. CONCLUSIONS CES concludes that FERC's Final EIS must be supplemented because study documents and the Final EIS significantly exceed CE(Xs thresholds for when NEPA documents should be updated. There are also significant new circumstances and information relevant to social, economic,and environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed federal action (i.e., issuing a long-term license) and its impacts [40 CFR §1502.9(c)(1)(ii)]. Preparing a Supplemental EIS would also further the purposes of NEPA [40 CFR is Promising Practices for Environmental Justice Methodologies in NEPA Reviews.Report of the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice and NEPA Committee. March 2016. Oroville.Facilities Highlights of the Settlement Agreement for Licensing(Department of Water Resources,2006). zo"Oroville Dam: Relicensing saga holds up habitat restoration,"Mercury News.August 21,2017. J N,: 10296,003 9 §1502.9(c)(2)j by providing an opportunity for agencies, the public, and other interested stakeholders to comment on the proposed action, given the significant new circumstances and information. CES also concludes that a Supplemental EIS would be consistent with FERC's obligations under the ESA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act.. We specifically conclude that FERC must prepare a Supplemental EIS before issuing a long-term license for the Oroville Facilities Project because, among other reasons: • CEQ.guidelines mandate updating studies that were conducted in support of an EIS that are more than five years old; most studies conducted in support of FERC's 2007 EIS are 13-15 years old„ o CEQ guidelines mandate supplementing an EIS that is more than 10 years old, which applies to FERC's 2007 Final EIS; • New circumstances and information related to the Oroville Facilities Project demonstrate that FERC is obligated to prepare a Supplemental EIS, including: o Failure of the primary(flow control)spillway in 2017; o Failure of the emergency spillway in 2017; • New socio-economic impact information from Butte County; a Impacts associated with the Great Recession that were not considered in the 2007 EIS; o New listings of species and designation of critical habitats under the Endangered Species Act; o A Biological Opinion issued in 2016 by NOAA's NMFS that concludes that issuing a long- term license would have significant impacts on threatened and endangered species and Essential Fish Habitat designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Act; a Recent consideration of environmental justice issues within the NEPA process; and o Failure to implement all aspects of the Settlement Agreement for a period of over 10 years • Preparing a Supplemental EIS would also materially support and further the purposes of NEPA. JM 10206,003 10 / a i APPENDIX Oroville Facilities Relicensing Program Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2100 Study Plan Reports (153 Reports Delivered by March 31, 2005) 6364393. ) JM 10296.003 DRAFT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Oroville Facilities Relicensing Program Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2100 Study Plan Reports Completed or Delivered to the Collaborative (153 Reports have been delivered as of March 31, 2005) Resource ArealStudy Report Name Completion or Delivery Date Cultural Resources C1 F.R. Cultural Resources Ethnographic Inventory-Public 02104 F.R. Cultural Resources Archaeological and Historical Site Inventory-Public 07104 F.R. Cultural Resources Ethnographic Inventory Report-Confidential 07104 D.R.Cultural Resources Archaeological and Historical Site Inventory-Confidential 08104 C2 F.R. Historic Properties Inventory and Evaluation:Oroville Facilities,Butte County-Confidential 07/04 C3/C4 P.D. Historic Properties Management Plan/Interpretive Evaluation 12104 Engineering and Operations E1 Model Development 06/03 E1.1 Statewide Operations Model Development 06103 E1.2 Local Operations Model Development(Final Enhancements Completed)-Confidential 08103 E1.31E1.41E1.5 Oroville Reservoir/Thermalito Complex/Feather River Temperature Model Development I.R. Temperature Model Presented to Engineering&Operations Work Group 04/03 E1.6 Feather River Flow-Stage Model Development 04103 E2 Perform Modeling Simulations Operations Modeling Seminar#1 06103 Operations Modeling Workshop#2 08/03 Operations Modeling Workshop#3 10/03 Operations Modeling Workshop#4 02104 Operations Modeling Workshop#5 04104 Benchmark Study Results for CALSIM 11,HYDROPS&WQRRS 09104 PDEA Alternatives Analysis and Simulations 12/04 E3 D.R.Evaluate the Potential for Additional Hydropower Generation at Oroville(Executive Summary) 05104 D.R.Evaluation of Potential Generation Improvements-CEI I Document-Confidential 05104 E4 F.R. Flood Management Study 12104 E6 Downstream Extent of Reasonable Control of Feather River Temperature by Oroville-Thermalito 10103 E7A D.R.Oroville Reservoir Cold Water Pool Availability Analysis 05103 Environmental— Fisheries F1 Evaluation of Project Effects on Non-Fish Aquatic Resources I.R. Task 1 -Evaluation of Project Effects on Non-Fish Aquatic Resources 04/03 F.R.Tasks 1/Task 2-Evaluation of Project Effects on Non-Fish Aquatic Resources 08104 F2 Evaluation of Project Effects on Fish Diseases I.R. Phase 1-Initial Progress Report on the Evaluation of Project Effects on Fish Diseases 11102 D.R.Task 1/Task 2-Evaluation of Project Effects on Fish Diseases 03103 F.R. 06104 F3.1 Evaluation of Project Effects on Resident Fish and their Hab within Lake Oroville,its Upstream Tributaries, the Thermalito Complex,and the Oroville Wildlife Area F.R.Task 1A-Assessment of Potential Fish Passage Impediments above Lake Oroville's High Water Mark 05104 F.R.Task 1 B-Fish Species Composition in Lake Oroville's Upstream Tributaries 12104 F.R. Task 1C,F15 Task 2-Inventory of Potentially Available Habitat,and Distribution of Juvenile and Adult Fish Upstream from Lake Oroville 06104 LR. Task 1 C and F3.2 Task 4A-Fish Habitat GIS Coverage(GIS Maps) 06103 F.R.Task 2A/Task 3A-Fish Species Composition:Lake Oroville,Thermalito Diversion Pool, &Thermalito Forebay 07103 F.R. Task 2B-Evaluation of the Ability of Lake Oroville's Cold Water Pool to Support Salmonid Stocking Recommendations 03103 I.R. Task 2C-Evaluation of Lake Oroville's Water Surface Elevation Reductions on Bass Spawn Success 12102 RR. Task 2D-Management Practices and Monitoring Studies of White Sturgeon 12102 1 Oroville Facilities Relicensing Program Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2100 Study Plan Reports Completed or Delivered to the Collaborative (153 Reports have been delivered as of March 31, 2005) Resource Area/Study Report Name Completion or Delivery Date Environmental—Fisheries (continued) F3.1 Evaluation of Project Effects on Resident Fish and their Hab within Lake Oroville,its Upstream Tributaries, the Thermalito Complex,and the Oroville Wildlife Area-continued F.R. Task 3B/Task 3C-Project Operations Influencing Fish Habitat and Water Quality in the Thermalito Diversion Pool and Thermalito Forebay 05104 F.R. Task 4A-Fish Species Composition and Evaluation of Juvenile Bass Recruitment in the Thermalito Afterbay 12104 F.R. Task 4B-Characterization of Cold Water Pool Availability in the Thermalito Afterbay 02/04 F.R. Task 4C-Evaluation of Water Surface Fluctuations on Bass Nest Dewatering and Characterization of Inundated Littoral Habitat in the Thermalito Afterbay 08104 I.R. Task 5A-One-Mile Pond Fish Species Composition 11/03 I.R. Task 5B-Characterization of Fish Habitat in One-Mile Pond 02104 F3.2 Evaluation of Project Effects on Resident Fish and their Habitat in the Feather River Downstream of the Fish Barrier Dam F.R.Task 11Task 41Task 5-Comparison of Fish Distribution to Habitat Distribution and Maps(by species) 08/04 D.R.Task 1 and F21 Task 2-Fish Distribution in the l=eather River below the Thermalito Diversion Dam to the Confluence with the Sacramento River 01103 I.R. Task 2 and F21 Task 1 -Literature Review of Life History and Habitat Requirements for Feather River Fish Species 01103 F.R. Task 2,F15 Task 1,and F21 Task 1-Literature Review of Life History and Habitat Requirements for Feather River Fish Species 04104 F.R. Task 3A-Final Assessment of Potential Sturgeon Passage Impediments 09103 F.R. Task 3A-Final Assessment of Sturgeon Distribution and Habitat Use 12103 F.R. Task 3B-Assessment of Potential Project Effects on Splittail Habitat 07104 LR. Task 4A and F3.1 Task 1C-Fish Habitat GIS Coverage(GIS Maps) 05103 F517 Evaluation of Potential Effects of Fisheries Management Activities on ESA-Listed Fish Species F.R. Task 1 -Evaluation of Potential Effects of Fisheries Management Activities on ESA-Listed Fish Species 05104 F.R. Task 2-Evaluate the Achievement of Current Stocking Goals 09104 F.R. Task 3-Evaluate the Interaction between the Lake Oroville Fishery&Upstream Tributary Fisheries 12104 F8 Transfer of Energy and Nutrients by Anadromous Fish Migrations D.R.Transfer of Energy and Nutrients by Anadromous Fish Migrations 04103 D.R.Revised-Transfer of Energy and Nutrients by Anadromous Fish Migrations 09103 Summary of Revisions to SP-F8 Technical Report 09103 F9 Evaluation of Project Effects on Natural Salmonid Populations Phase 1-Interim Literature Review 11102 Phase 1 Revised Interim Literature Review 03103 D.R.The Effects of the Feather River Hatchery on Naturally Spawning Salmonids 11104 F10 Evaluation of Project Effects on Salmonids and Their Habitat in the Feather River below the Fish Barrier Dam E.R. Task IC-Evaluation of Flow-Related Physical Impediments in the Feather River below the Fish Barrier Dam 01103 E.R. Task 1 E-Pre-Spawning Chinook Salmon Migration Patterns and Holding Characteristics 03104 LR. Task 1E-Identification and Characterization of Early Up-Migrant Chinook Salmon Holding Habitat and Habitat Use Patterns 04103 F.R.Task 1 DlTask 1 E-Evaluation of Oroville Facilities Operations on Water Temperature Related Effects on Pre-Spawning Adult Chinook Salmon And Characterization of Holding Habitat 07104 F.R. Task 2A-Evaluation of Spawning and Incubation Substrate Suitability for Salmonids in the Lower Feather River 07104 I.R. Task 2B-Steelhead Spawning Methods 05103 F.R. Task 2B-Evaluation of Potential Effects of Oroville Facilities Operations on Spawning Chinook Salmon 07104 I.R. Task 2B-2003 Lower Feather River Steelhead Redd Survey 07103 F.R. Task 2C-Evaluation of the Timing,Magnitude and Frequency of Water Temperatures and Their Effects on Chinook Salmon Egg and Alevin Survival 07104 F.R. Task 2D-Evaluation of Flow Fluctuation Effects on Chinook Salmon Redd Dewatering in the Lower Feather River 07104 F.R. Task 3A-Distribution and Habitat Use of Juvenile Steelhead and other Fishes of the Lower Feather River 04104 I.R. Task 3A-Distribution and Habitat Use of Steelhead and Other Fishes in the Lower Feather River 01103 F.R. Task 3B-Growth Investigations of Wild and Hatchery Steelhead in the Lower Feather River 02104 I.R. Task 3B-Growth Investigations of Wild Juvenile Steelhead in the Feather River using Mark and Recapture Techniques 06103 I.R. Task 3B-Steelhead Rearing Temperatures 07103 F.R. Task 3C-Juvenile Steelhead and Chinook Salmon Stranding in the Lower Feather River 08104 LR. Task 3C-Redd Dewatering and Juvenile Steelhead and Chinook Salmon Stranding in Lower Feather River 06103 F.R. Task 4A-River Flow Effects on Emigrating Juvenile Salmonids in the Lower Feather River 12103 2 Oroville Facilities Relicensing Program Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2100 Study Plan Reports Completed or Delivered to the Collaborative (153 Reports have been delivered as of March 31, 2405) Resource Area/Study Report Name Completion or Delivery Date Environmental—Fisheries(continued) NO Evaluation of Project Effects on Salmonids and Their Habitat in the Feather River below the Fish Barrier Dam-continued I.R. Task 4A-Literature Review of Devices Used for Enumeration of Juvenile Steelhead Outmigrants 01103 F.R.Task 4B-Timing,Thermal Tolerance Ranges and Potential Water Temperature Effects on Emigrating Juvenile Salmonids in the Lower Feather River 10103 F15 Evaluation of the Feasibility to Provide Passage for Anadromous Salmonids Past Oroville Facility Dams F.R.Task 1,F3.2 Task 2 and F21 Task 1 -Literature Review of Life History and Habitat Requirements for Feather River Fish Species 04104 F.R.Task 2,F3.1 Task 1C-Inventory of Potentially Available Habitat,and Distribution of Juvenile and Adult Fish Upstream from Lake Oroville 06104 F.R. Task 3-Evaluation of Methods and Devices Used in the Capture,Sorting,Holding, Transport and Release of Fish 06104 F.R.Task 4-Fish Passage Model 01104 F.R.Task 4-Fish Passage Model(amended Appendix A) 11104 F16 Evaluation of Project Effects on Instream Flows and Fish Habitat D.R.Phase 1 07102 F.R. Phase 2 02/04 Addendum to Phase 2 Report—Evaluation of Project Effects on Instream Flows and Fish Habitat 01105 F21 Project Effects on Predation of Feather River Juvenile Anadromous Salmonids I.R. Task 1 and F3.2 Task 2-Literature Review of Life History and Habitat Requirements for Feather River Fish Species 01/03 F.R.Task 1,F3.2 Task 2,and F15 Task 1-Literature Review of Life History and Habitat Requirement for Feather River Fish Species 04104 D.R.Task 2 and F3.2 Task 1 -Fish Distribution in the Feather River below Thermalito Diversion Dam to the Confluence with the Sacramento River 01103 F.R.Task 3-Incorporate Results of Tasks 1 and 2 05104 I.R. Task 4-Predation PM&E Literature Review 02103 Environmental Study Report Comments and Errata 01105 Environmental—Geomorphic Paleontologic Resources in the Vicinity of FERC Project 2100(Orovil[e Reservoir and Lower Feather River): Literature-Based Inventory and Significance Assessment-Public 01105 Literature-Based Inventory and Significance Assessment-Confidential 01105 G1 Effects of Project Operations on Geomorphic Processes Upstream of Oroville Dam I.R. Task 2-Map the Channel Resources in the Tributaries above Oroville Dam and Task 3-Re-Survey Reservoir Cross-Sections and Determine Sediment in Storage 04103 F.R. 04104 G2 Effects of Project Operations on Geomorphic Process Downstream of Oroville Dam I.R. 04/03 F.R. Task 1.1-Bibliography and Index 06/04 F.R.Task 1.2-Physiographic Setting and Mesohabitat 04/04 F.R. Task 2-Spawning Riffle Characteristics 08/04 F.R. Task 3/Task 4-Channel Cross-Sections and Photography 09/04 F.R.Task 5-Dam Effects on Channel Hydraulics and Geomorphology and Task 8-Summary and Conclusions 07104 F.R.Task 6-Channel Meanders and Bank Erosion Monitoring 07/04 D.R.Task 7-Hydraulic and Sediment Transport Modeling with Fluvial 12 03104 Environmental-Terrestrial T1 F.R. Effects of Project Operations and Features on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 04104 T2 Project Effects on Special Status Species F.R. Project Effects on Special Status Wildlife Species 02104 F.R.Project Effects on Special Status Plant Species 03104 T315 F.R. Project Effects on Riparian Resources,Wetlands,and Associated Floodplains 07104 T4 F.R. Biodiversity,Vegetation Communities,and Wildlife Habitat Mapping 12103 3 Oroville Facilities Relicensing Program Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2100 Study Plan Reports Completed or Delivered to the Collaborative (153 Reports have been delivered as of March 31, 2005) Resource Area/Study_Report Name Completion or Delivery Date Environmental—Terrestrial (continued) T6 I.R. Interagency Wildlife Management Coordination and Wildlife Management Plan Development 02104 T7 F.R. Project Effects on Noxious Terrestrial and Aquatic Plan Species 06104 T8 F.R. Project Effects on Non-Native Wildlife 09103 T9 F.R. Recreation and Wildlife 06104 T10 F.R.Effects of Project Features,Operation and Maintenance on Upland Plant Communities 08104 T11 F.R. Effects of Fuel Load Management and Fire Prevention on Wildlife and Plant Communities 10103 Environmental—Water Quality W1 Project Effects on Water Quality Designated Beneficial Uses for Surface Waters F.R.Revised 09/04 W2 Contaminant Accumulation in Fish,Sediments,and the Aquatic Food Chain D.R.Phase 1 02104 W3 Recreational Facilities and Operations Effects on Water Quality I.R. Task 1-Effects of Current Recreation Facilities and Operations and Task 1A-Identification of Potential Effects to Water Quality 11102 F.R. Task 16-First Year of Monitoring 08104 W5 Project Effects on Groundwater E.R. Task 1,Phase 1 -Inventory Existing Welts and Assessment of Existing Groundwater Data and Current Groundwater Monitoring Activities 01103 D.R.Task 1,Phase 1-Inventory Existing Wells and Assessment of Existing Groundwater Data and Current Groundwater Monitoring Activities(Revised) 05103 D.R.Task 1 03104 D.R.Task 2-Hyporheic Monitoring 11104 W6 Project Effects on Temperature Regime F.R. 07104 W7 Land and Watershed Management Effects on Water Quality I.R. 02103 F.R.Task 1-Effects to Water Quality from Ongoing Land Uses and Management,and Task 1 B-Monitoring of Potential Effects to Water Quality 08104 W9 Project Effects on Natural Protective Process F.R. 06104 Land Use, Land Management, and Aesthetics L1 F.R. Land Use Study 07104 L2 F.R. Land Mgmt Study 08104 L3 F.R. Comprehensive Plan Consistency Evaluation 05/04 L4 F.R. AestheticNisual Resources 07104 L5 F.R. Fuel Load Management Evaluation 05/04 Land Use,Management,and Aesthetics Study Reports Errata 01/05 Recreation and Socioeconomics R1 F.R.Vehicular Access Study 09103 R2 F.R. Recreation Safety Assessment 01104 4 Oroville Facilities Relicensing Program Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2100 Study Plan Reports Completed or Delivered to the Collaborative (153 Reports have been delivered as of March 31, 2005) Resource Area/Study Report Name Completion or Delivery.Date Recreation and Socioeconomics(continued) R3 F.R. Assess Relationship of Project Operations and Recreation 05104 R4 F-R.Assess Relationship of FishlWildlife Management of Recreation 05104 R5 F.R.Assessment of Recreation Areas Management 06104 R6 F.R.ADA Accessibility Assessment 09103 R7/R9/R13 I.R. Reservoir Boating-Existing Recreation Use-Recreation Surveys,Critical Path Recreation Field Studies 02103 R7 F.R. Reservoir Boating 03104 R8 F.R. Recreation Carrying Capacity 06104 R9 F.R. Existing Recreation Use Study 02104 R10 F.R. Recreation Facility Inventory and Condition Report 09/03 R11 F.R. Recreation and Public Use Impact Assessment 01104 R12 F.R. Projected Recreation Use 05104 R13 F.R. Recreation Surveys 12104 R14 F.R. Assess Regional Recreation Barriers to Recreation 02104 R15 F.R. Recreation Suitability 02104 R16 F.R.Whitewater and River Boating 01104 R17 F.R. Recreation Needs Analysis 06104 R18 F.R. Recreation Activity,Spending,and Associated Economic Impacts 05104 R19 F.R. Fiscal Impacts 05104 R18/R19 Recreation Activity,Spending,and Associated Economic Impacts F.R. Phase 1 Background Report-Economic and Fiscal Conditions 05103 D.R.Phase 2 Background Report-Property Value Analysis using a Hedonic Properly-Pricing Model 01104 D.R.Phase 2 Background Report-Recreation and Tourism Economy in Oroville 01104 Recreation and Socioeconomics Study Reports Addenda and Errata 01105 5 C S \ APPENDIX B 2017 U pdm sto `Report on the Operational Impacts of the Oros|m Facilities Project on Butte County" and "Socio-Economic Impacts of the Oro+Qe Facilities Project on Butte County, California" (VV6 m » A: 10296,003 DRAFT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE *C A L I F 0 R N I A 2,017 Up dates t "Report a ort n the Operational Impacts of the rov lle Facilities Project on Butte County" and "Socio-Economic Impacts of the roville Facilities Praject n Butte County,, California" Originally submitted to FERC by the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer February 2006 Update provided by Paul Hahn, Chief Administrative Officer June 2017 PDP-Page:I |mFebruary ZOO8 the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer of Butte County filed, on behalf ofButte Co�uoty, adocument entitled Report mothe Operational Impacts ofthe Onmuil/e Facilities onButte County,. This 2Ol7Update provides updated cost estimates based onthe fiscal year (FY) 2016-17 Adopted Budget or FY 2015-16 Actual Costs,to match the sources used inthe 2O06study. Updated information isprovided for the following: ~ Fiscal data for Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice Services, Fire and Rescue Services, Communication Services, and Roads. • Butte County population. • The 5O-yeoraverage for the National Consumer Price Index /CP|\. Certain data, either not within the County's control or not readily avaiKabUe, was not updated and includes but isnot limited to: • Variables used [nthe calculation of"Won ResidentV|sitorFactor" amdtbe °Non- ResidentVisitmrUseVVithimtheAreaofHighestUseFactor", suchasthevisitordata provided bythe California Department ofWater Resources/DVVR\ inthe Final Existing Recreation Use Report(R-12), submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). • Call data for fire responses. w Cost data for upgrading dirt and gravel roads topaved nr chip sealed roads, due tn naturally occurring asbestus. Kn addition,the County submitted a report titled Socio-Economk Impacts of the Oroville fpuj/it&os Project on Butte County, California authored byFK4YAssociates, Inc. The FIVIY report included information regarding the economy in Butte County and estimates on the financial impact to Butte County in two areas: 1\ lost property taxes and 2) costs related to the failure of the Project to provide |nvv cost power to |Vc@| r8s,identS, businesses, and industry. Updated information isprovided for lost property taxes, only. [this space intentionally left blank] PDF'Page 2 6 M . i i 5umrrrry Section 1.0 (pages 3-4 of the original report) • tater Enforcement/Criminal Justice Services The original report identified $2,035,416 in direct annual costs and $1,032,000 in one- time costs. This update identifies$1,939,791* in direct annual casts in FY 2016-17 values, plus$366,608 of one-time costs for the Sheriff's Office. The average annual cost over a 50-year period for direct costs is$6,548,191,or$545,683 per month. Exhibits 3a and 3b—Update.lune 2017 provide updated cost information based on FY 2015-16 Actual Costs or FY 2016-17 Budget. Exhibit 3c—Update June 2017 provides annual costs for 50 years, with a cost escalator based on the 50-year average (1966-2016) of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Exhibit also includes the one-time costs for the Sheriff's Office. * The 2006 Study included coasts for"Crucial Asset and Community Threat"services, which have been removed and are included under separate discussions between the C INR and the Butte County Sheriff. • Fire and Rescue Services The original report identified $393,257 in direct annual costs and $1,309,478 in one- time costs. This update identifies$644,361 in direct annual costs in FY 2016-17 values, plus$1,016,597 of one-time costs for equipment and fire station replacement over a 50- year period. The average annual cost over a 50-year period for direct costs is $7,032,961, or$169,413 per month. Exhibits 4 and 4a—Update June 2017 provide updated cost information based on FY 2015-16 Actual Costs, as well as annual costs for 50 years, with a cost escalator based on the 50-year average (1966-2016) of the Consumer Price Index(CPI). Exhibit 5— Update June 2017 provides updated cost information for construction a standard Butte County fire station, based upon 2011. actual costs and the Construction Cost Index (CCI)for San Francisco from 2011-2017. Exhibit 6—Update June 2017 provides updated cost and replacement schedule information for fire engines only. PCF-Page 3 • Communications Services The original report identified$351,143 in one-time costs. This update identifies $610,576 in one-time costs, plus$12,657 in annual maintenance for the new communications/radio system the County is currently constructing. Exhibit 7—Update June 2017 provides updated costs for the County's radio system replacement project and annual maintenance, currently under contract with Motorola. • Public Works—Road Services-The original report identified $791,351 in annuals costs and $5,306,136 in one-time costs. This update identifies$1,099,202 in annual costs in FY 2016-17 values. The County requests the Project upgrade dirt and gravel roads used exclusively by the Project and then dedicate the roads to the County, in lieu of paying the County one-time funds to do the work. • EOCServices—The County requests that DWR build a new EOC facility for the County out of the Project-created flood zone and then either provide the County with long-term use of the facility or give the facility to the County. The County does not request that DWR provide the County with any funding. • Health and Human Services-The original report identified $1,837,983 in indirect annual costs. This update does not provide updated numbers for health and human services costs or General Fund contributions,which have grown over the years. It does apply the Project's share to only the General Fund portion identified in 2004-05, resulting in an updated amount of$129, 890 in indirect annual costs. [this space intentionally left blank] PDF-Page 4 t Law Enfcrtcenle�t�Cr�rnanal Justice$ rvrc�s , Section 4.1.1.2 (pages 18-20 of the original report): Table 4.1.1.2-1 (Updated) Calculation of the Annual Cost of Providing. Law Enforcement'Services for Non-Resident Visitors Calculation Detail 2,635/1000= 2.635 2.635 * $355,423 = $936,538 The annual operating cost to provide Law Enforcement Services to Non-Resident Visitors within the Project Area is estimated to be$936,538 in FY 2016-17. The one-time costs to enable law enforcement support are estimated to be an additional $366,608 in FY 2016-17 (see Exhibits 3a and 3c--Update.lune 2017). The average annual cost to provide Lawn Enforcement Services over a 50"-year period is $3,161,452, or$263,458 per month (see Exhibit 3c--Update dune 2017). Section 4,1.2..2 (page 21 of the original report): Table 4.1.2.1-1 (Update) Calculation Detail for Other Criminal Justice Costs FY 15-16 Actual Project-Related Project-Related Net C~ounty,Crost % Cost District Attorney - Criminal $ 10,951,402 2.45% $ 268,309 Probation Department 11,163,146 2.45% $ 273,497 Public Defender $ 3,078,156 2.45% $ 75,415 Sheriff- ,Jail $ 15,756,364 2.45% $ 386,031' $ 40,949,068 $ 1,003,252 The total estimated annual operating cost for Criminal Justice Services attributable to the Project is$1,003,252 in FY 2016-17 (see Exhibit 3b--Update June 2017). The average annual cost to provide Other Criminal Justice.Services over the 50-year period is $3,.386,698,or$282,225 per month (see Exhibit 3c--update dune 201.7). PD -Page 5 i r Section 4.2.2 (pages 35-37 of the original report) Table 4.2.2-2 (Updated) Total Operating Costs for Stations that Serve the Area of Highest Use 06/1.7 $j Station Type Response Cost factor Operating Number of Total Operating Costs Attributable Level Coasts Stations Costs to the Project Butte County Direct Station Response 8.52% 1,271,079 4 $ 5,084,316 $ 433,184 Partial Response/ Butte County "Wve up and Station Cover" 2.45% $ 1,271,079 4 $ 5,084,316 $ 124,566 Butte County Volunteer Direct Station I Response 8.52% $ 80,099 5 $ 400,495 $ 34,122 Partial Butte County Response/ Volunteer "Move up and Station Cover" 2.45% $ 80,099 4 $ 320„396 $ 7,850 Partial CAI..FIRE/ Response/ Butte County "Move up and Amador Station Cover” 2.45%1 $ 193,515 1 4 $ 774,060 1 $ 18,9'64 Table 4.2.2-3 Project Related Cost of Replacing a Station That Responds Directly to the Project Calculation Detail 4 * $1,500,000=$6,000,000 $6,000,000 x 8.52% =$511,2.00 Annualized Costs over a 10-year period $511,200/10=$51,120 PDF-Page 6 Table 4.2.2-4 Project Related Cost of Replacing a Station That Partially Serves the Area of Highest Use or Provides Backup to Other Stations Calculation Detail 4 * $1,500,000= $6,000,000 $6,000,000 x 2.45% =$147,000 Annualized Cost over a 10-year period= $147,000/10=$14,700 Table 4.2.2-5 Total One-Time Costs Attributed to Project For Replacing Eight Fire Stations Cdlcuiatan Detail $511,200+$147,000=$658,200 Annualized Cost over a 10-year period $658,200/10=$65,820 The estimated annual cost for Fire and Rescue Services operations demanded by the Project is$644,361 in FY 2016-17 (see Exhibit 4a— Update June 2017). The estimated one-time fixed costs for station replacement for Fire and Rescue Services demanded by the Project over a 50-year period are$658,200 (see Exhibit 5—Update June 2017). The estimated one-time costs for engine replacement for Fire and Rescue Services demanded by the Project over a 50-year period are$358,397 (see Exhibits 4a and 6—Update June 2017). The average annual cost to provide Fire and Rescue Services over the 50-year period is $2,032,961, or.$169,413 per month (see Exhibit 4a--Update June 2017). PDF-Page 7 Cora�mun� at10n Systrn Seruces Section 4.3.2 (page 40 of the original report) Table 43.2-1 Summary of Required Communication System Upgrade Casts Motorola Project Actual Cost Replacement System—One-time Costs $7,166,380 p 700 MHz to meet FCC requirements. • Eight (8)fixed-radio sites located within County borders—provides additional talk groups, coverage, and capacity New microwave backhaul network to interconnect fixed-radio sites. • Redundancy. • New system equipment including fixed-site radio equipment, 0-1-1 Dispatch.. consoles, and approximately 1,000 handheld,/mobile radios. Calculation Detail -- $7,166,380 * 8.521= .$610,576 Total one-time costs related to the Project to replace the County's radio and microwave systems are$610,576 (see Exhibit 7—Update June 2017). Annual maintenance costs related to the Project to maintain the system are$12,657 (see Exhibit 7—Update June 2017). [this space intentionally left blank] PDF-Page 8 �"�rbiA� '+ `�4r R�rd er�►�ces Section 4.4(pages 42 and 46 of the original report) Table 4.4.1.2-1 Calculation Detail for Costs of County Road Maintenance for Project'Visitor in the Area of Highest Use Calculation Detail $5,831,743 * 8.52a/ _ $496,865 Table 4.4.2-1 Calculation of Costs to Maintain Unpaved Roads Once Converted to Reduce Environmental Impacts Calculation Detail 301.32 * $19,866=$602,337 Total annual mitigation required by the Project for road maintenance costs on existing County-maintained arterial and collector roads used by the Project is $496,865 (see exhibit 8 —Update June 2017). One-time costs to the Project to upgrade gravel roads used exclusively by the Project to paved or chip-sealed roads have not been updated. The County requests the Project upgrade the roads and then dedicate the upgraded roads to the County for on-going maintenance. Annual costs to the Project for the road maintenance on the upgraded roads would be $602,337 (see Exhibit 8— Update June 2017). PDF-Page 9 ` Sectio�n |V(pages 16-18ofthe original report) Property Taxes—The original report provided three methodologies for calculating lost property taxes for the 41^0O0acres purchased for the Project. The methodologies included' 1. Lost Taxes Assuming Project VVasNevgr8uHt /if|anddexdopedovert|meintheemefashiooas the County ass`mhm|e\; 2. Big Bend Hydro Plant and Alternate Use oƒExcess Property (if the private hydro plant remained and other land developed in the same fashion as the County as a whole); and 3. Investor Owned Utility(if same facilities were owned byand investor-owned utility esa non-rate base asset orother privately owned unregu�latmdpower pnoduced. This update provides revised estimates for lost property tax revenue in 2017 values, based on the 4Q-yearaverage annual inflation factor of 1.788% as provided by the Board of Equalization (see Attachment A). Methodology 1—Assuming Project Never Built The original report estimated $2,9Q5,489imlost property tax revenue im2OQG, under this methodology. This update estimates $3,628,088 in lost property tax revenue in 2017. The average annual lost property tax revenue over a 5O1yearperiod,utilizing this methodology,is $5,844°799,wr$4B7,VG7per month. Methodology 2—Big Bend Hydra and Alternate Use of Excess Property The original report estimated $3,2b5^488inlost property tax revenue in200b, under this methodology. This update estimates$3,968,355 in lost property tax revenue in 2017. The average annual lost property tax revenue over e5O-yearperiod�,utilizing this methodology,im $6°392/964,or$532,747 per month. The original report estimated $6,870,S35inlost property tax revenue |n20U8, under this methodology. This update estimates in 2017. The average annual lost property tax revenue over a 50-yearperiod, utilizing this methodology,is $13,45O,694,or$1,120,891per month. PDF-Page 10 04 a) N 00 N Cl M CO) 0) CS) r C4 CC) N cV CS I; CL <r CO 04 r Ln r Nr r; 0 cv Lt) 1�4C1 d t6 t L , �- CL 00 (c) c I t') LO LO LO regi CL (CJ o co co o) to 0 1- C`C�(,% Ca C) 0 o DC7' CPS LC) m 0 CN h "C 0 0 0 0 Cl) 'e— 1 Q? LC) rk m r r~ C'4 r,, L C> `r o O C_i C7 )0," 4) C'7 N t5'i r C,CD CV C96 C'71 ''.`!' LCD Q C`d Ld S2 r cn C) CD (Y) CV CO r N r-- ;CrS; ,` r- LizSCS; •— TS CSD r�- C14 Nen i CD 00 +CS?' U: l N C7? CR M", '•xC-4LC) L6 Net (6 4f q' r w LL C7 d' r o) (C? 07 00 00 /r, £] CSD co 6) Ln CLD CD .w to ; 4) CL r O CD r CL eta co r- N CMS 0 ct U7 d CO M N N CMi cwa f �r da /; 0 E %i iii l , /;i 4 ', r C) CCS r-. CCD C+9 ' d CD C p CNV N N (N N CW co MMA CS %' i q5 st (0 N CD co L6 ga LL Crya d ✓/ % IL di LO Ol i; C / k CL CID p ' CL CZ Aw CL ami r. Cid 0 ` ; i '; % rc' �t %t ` c c % C chis > c� qCYC <C: (D CL00 LL (3 D y» a is ac2-11 o ; ; W UUC} UU iWa 0 " % ti C14 cv a� w cs "a ca. D a� w� riI ; CV C 1 C Com: cl CD CD C7 ✓ i ;re— [L r C C. LL 0- GO CL 'r ?' p to t- C"7 C CSS; CIS LL,. ' + i4t7rAo;tet' qi LO C7 LL z ' toe� �} G , o C o CL a� 4- �? <C cap , E 'Z7 U) oa� uj d a. Co U) Exhbit 3c-update June 2017 Estimated Cost for Criminal Justice Services over 50-year Project Life FACTORS 225,411 County Population-2015 11,334 FERC Project Papulation Not updated 2.45% Ratio of FERC Project Population Not updated 4.15% 50-year average-CPI-1966-2016 Annual Operating Costs Licensee Mitigation Other Criminal Justice Costs Sbw3�iff District Attorney Probation Public Sheriff- Year oflcerSMos Criminal Div. Department Defender Jails Total FY2016 17 $ 936,538 $ 268,309 $ 273,497 $ 75,415 $ 386,031 $ 1,939,791 a`W 01; br`WN, 179�"l lit$f) FflliN h N4,41 Year 1 1.015,8851: $ 291,041 $ 296,668 $ 81,804 $ 418,736 $ 2,104,134 Year $ 303,119 $ 308,980 $ 85,1199 $ 436,114 $ 2,191,456 Year 1,901,952' $ 315,699 $ 321,803 $ 88,735 $ 454,213 $ 2,282,409 Year 4 $� 1 147,683 $ 328,800 $ 335,158 $ 92,417 $ 473,062 $ 2,377,121 Yaar 5 9,995312 $ 342,445 $ 349,067 $ 96,253 $ 492,695 $ 2,475,771 Year 6 ' 9 244,9 f7r $ 356,657 $ 383,553 $ 900.247 $ 513,141 $ 2,578,516 Year 7 1295,589 $ 371,458 $ 378,640 $ 104,407 $ 534,437 $ 2,685,524 Year 8 i 9 35 390 $ 386,874 $ 394,354 $ 108,740 $ 556,616 $ 2,796,973 Year 9 ^ 1,+9 ,43 $ 402,929 $ 410,720 $ 913,253 $ 579,715 $ 2,913,048 Year 10 �$ ' 9 044 79$ $ 419,651 $ 427,764 $ 117,953 $ 603,774 $ 3,033,939 Year 11 $ 1,525 57 $ 437,066 $ 448.517 $ 122,848 $ 628,830 $ 3,959,848 Year 12 $ 455,204 $ 464,006 $ 127,946 $ 654,927 $ 3,290,981 Year 13 „ 9,654,538' $ 474,095 $ 483,262 $ 133,256 $ 682,106 $ 3,427,557 Year 14 9 723514 $ 493,770 $ 503„317 $ 138,786 $ 710,413 $ 3,569,801 Year 15 � M1,7S5039N '$ 514,262 '$ 524,205 $ 144,546 $ 739,896 $ 3,717,947 Year 161 $ 535,604 $ 545,959 $ 150,544 $ 770,601 $ 3,872,242 Year 17 r$ 949 j $ 557,839 $ 568,617 $ 156,792 $ 802,.581 $ 4,032,940 Year 18 ,�" 07;^25 $ 580,981 $ 592,214 $ 163,299 $ 835,888 $ 4,200,307 Year 19 ,� 2�908aJr' $ 605,092 $ 616,791 $ 170,076 $ 870„578 $ 4,374,620 Year 20 '��' 12,9 ,735, $ 630,203 $ 642,388 $ 177,134 $ 906„707 $ 4,556,967 Year 21 � r ' ;? ��02�d $ 656,357 $ 669,047 $ 184,485 $ 944,335 $ 4,745,248 Year 22 r i ,3$6, Or9 $ 683,595 $ 696,813 $ 192,141 $ 983,525 $ 4,942,175 Year 23 r /�; 15 $ 711,965 $ 725,730 $ 200,115 $ 1,024,341 $ 5,947,276 Year 24 y' � ,5$8F $ 741,511 $ 755,848 $ 208,420 $ 1,066,851 $ 5,360,888 Year25 �6567 $ 772,284 $ 787,216 $ 217,069 $ 1,111,126 $ 5,583;364 Year26 28 ,x40 $ 804,334 $ 819,885 $ 226,077 $ 1,157,237 $ 5,896,074 Year27 �� 192053 $ 837,713 $ 853,911 $ 235,460 $ 1,205,263 $ 6,056,400 Year 28 $ x,045401 $ 872,479 $ 889,348 $ 245,231 $ 1,255,281 $ 6,307,740 Year29 $ 908,686 $ 92.6,256 $ 255,408 $ 1,307,375 $ 6,569,512 Year30 $ " 303495 $ 946,397 $ 964,695 $ 266,008 $ 1,361,632 $ 6,842,146 Year 31 rj i {4493,508" $ 985,672 $ 1,004,730 $ 277,047 $ 1,418,139 $ 7,126,095 Year 32 $ 1,026,578 $ 1,046,427 $ 288,544 $ 1,476,992 $ 7,421,828 Year 33 $ �' $7 f�'994 $ 1,069,181 $ 11089,853 $ 300„519 $ 1,538,287 $ 7,729,834 Year34 $ 38687 $ 9,113,552 $ 1,135,482 $ 312,991 $ 1,602,126 $ 8,050,622 Year 35 $ X4,448 971 $ 1,159,764 $ 1,182,188 $ 325,980 $, 1,668,614 $ 8,384,723 Year 36 ;$ 4 6 X76, $ 1,207,894 $ 1,231,249 $ 339,508 $ 1,737,862 $ 8,732,689 Year37 �49,1 � $ 1,258,022 $ 1,2.82,346 $ 353,597 $ 1,809„983 $ 9,095,096 Year 38 $ 45at ;� $ 1,310,230 '$ 1,335,563 $ 368,272 $ 1,885,097 $ 9,472,542 Year 39 4i3rl175,' $ 1,364,604 $ 1,390.989 $ 383,555 $ 1,963,329 $ 9,865,653 Year40 4980;847 $ 1,421,236 $ 1,448,716 $ 399,473 $ 2,044,807 $ 10,275,077 Year 41 $ 1,460,217 $ 1,546,837 $ 416,051 $ 2,129;667 $ 10,701,493 Year42 � �381yf4j $ 1,541,646 $ 1,571,453 $ 433,317 $ 2,218,048 $ 11,145,665 Year43 5,6Cd59 $ 1,605,624 $ 1,636,669 $ 451,299 $ 2,310,097 $ 11,608,147 Year44 $ 5,8304 , $ 1,672,257 $ 1,704,590 $ 470,028 $ 2,405,966 $ 12,089,886 Year45 �$, 807828U $ 1,741,656 $ 1,775,331 $ 489,535 $ 2,505,813 $ 12,591,616 Year 46 8„331,5 $ 1,813,935 $ 1,849,007 $ 509,850 $ 2,609,805 $ 13,114,168 Year47 $ /659431 $ 1,889,213 $ 1,925,741 $ 531,009 $ 2,718,111 $ 13,658,406 Year 48 $ 1,967,616 $ 2,005,659 $ 553,046 $ 2,830,913 $ 14„225,230 Year 49 $ 2,049,272 $ 2„088,894 $ 575,997 $ 2,948,396 '$ 14,815,577 Year 50 ',$, N�,,7»?65;88 $ 2,134,316 $ 2,175,583 $ 5.99,901 $ 3,070,754 $ 95,430„423 Subtotal 2"65, "9N, $ 46,550,587 $ 47,450,637 $ 13,084167 $ 66,974,804 $ 336,545,825 Avg Annua $ 905,737 $ 923,250 $ 254,5799 $ 1,303,132 $ 6,548,191 Av monthly IV' „� �,,;s�83,d;31'�$ 75,478 $ 76,937 $ 21,215 $ 108,594 $ 545,683 lnitial Fixed Costs Sheriff- District Attorney Probation Public Sheriff- Police$vcs. Criminal Div. Department Defender Jail Total FY2016-17 '$ ii352r00. $ $ $ $ $ 352,000 FY2017-18 $ 366,608 Subtotal ..,' 365„ b3 $ $ $ 366,608 PDF-Page 13 IN a, al 16 4 46 1 C. r- CL E E � E, r 0 a , a a it o ; 70 b 14J b C7,p43 0 0 0 C7. CL ara us ,u1 u7 an sn . CO U) na er7 rra 0 — csf mea 93) a) ClL 7 a LLLL 0- LLGC1d� Cl 0 0� aac ` oy \ \ a\ 4° ' (14 to C'+,k LO W) LO Cy N N Lo tal k] " to 4T CCM N 4^+I r 4`d o) 4`+l Cd CV CtiN cV C6 04 QJ ID Im 67X Im 0 t N 4wd N,N N (i CV CV h6 4"d ^ tt7 rsa 0 m 4 C4 4 r4 C4 (4 'd^ V, 19t" � 477 d3t 477 `7 *1 ,N W 04 W CO W N 4 t CV 4771 w 4b 0) 0) co IX7 pC�� j�� d. Op ti i17 Rn Sd Qd CCa cxa��r+ ^e^^ +A^ +r+W +r+(C. 4G iJa�tG+ �j k '� p_, LL" CL i �" �r m e t a +oel*40-600)- C 4s cs7 4sa tsa iet i 4sa -a5 � cs)0 0) � cs7a3m +� 0) 0) LO m c7 ,- ;c7 0 CD 4a ca es o cr o CL ++ CNNNK��A4wl 03d74Ca03 cK74rc4KY7on O c i, dl t K7 mU. . r : 1 r�l ��i ��, f y < a) 4 Y D t77 _ 7J C7 t r• r'^,. CO (N C7 •-- hr '�' t 4'N 0 ra c+7 to cca csa cs7 +sa co z 04y CO: 0 C1 u» LL ld C3of w F= wa + � aa; c c� a C37 C q 7„Lia CL c p ( AW rrl ro Z) U 0 LL m m f D �,„�i / G�P CO Exhibit 4a-U'pd'ate 2017 Butte County Annual Costs for Fire and Rescue Services-Staffing,Operations, Engines-50-year period 225,411 UPDATED 11;334 �NbT'UiJbATEIJ 5:03�J� N(}TOPDATE1 ""' 67,930',�6*OPDATE6 ,'1J(3T;43P, OET�::..'. 4.15% UPDATED Annual Staffing/ Engine Operations Replacement EY 2015-16 $ 618,685 $ 473,000 Year $ 644,361 $ 492„630 Year $ 671,102 $ 513,0774 Year 3 $ 698,953 $ 534,366 Year 4 $ 727,958 $ 556,542 Year 5 $ 758,169 $ 579,639 Year 6 $ 789,634 $ 603,694 Year 7 $ 822,403 $ 628,747 Year 8 $ 856,533 $ 654,840 Year 9 $ 892,079 $ 682,016 Year 10 $ 929,100 $ 710,320 Year 11 $ 967,658 $ 739,798 Year 12 $ 1,007„816 $ 770,500 Year 13 $ 1,049,640 $ 842,475 Year 14 $ 1,093„200 $ 835,778 Year 15 $ 1,138,568 $ 870,463 Year 16 $ 1,185,819 $ 906,587 Year 17 $ 1,235,030 $ 944,210 Year 18 $ 1,286,284 $ 983,395 Year 19 $ 1,339,665 $ 1,024,206 Yea,r20 $ 1,395,261 $ 1,066,.711 Year 21 $ 1,453,164 $ 1,110,979 Year22 $ 1,,513,471 $ 1,157,085 Year23 $ 1,576,280 $ 1,205,104 Year24 $ 1,641,695 $ 1,255,116 Year 25 $ 1,709,826 $ 1,307,203 Year26 $ 1,780,783 $ 1,361,452 Year27 $ 1,854,686 $ 1„417,952 Year28 $ 1,931,655 $ 1,476,797 Year 29 $ 2,011,819 $ 1,538,084 Year 30 $ 2,095,309 $ 1,601,915 Year 31 $ 2,182,265 $ 1,668,394 Year 32 $ 2,272,829 $ 1,737,632 Year33 $ 2,367,151 $ 1,809,744 Year34 $ 2,465,388 $ 1,884,849 Year35 $ 2,567,701 $ 1,963„070 Year36 $ 2,674,261 $ 2,044,537 Year'37 $ 2,785,243 $ 2,129,385 Year 38 $ 2„900,831 $ 2,217,755 Year39 $ 3,021,215 $ 2,309,792 Year40 $ 3,146,595 $ 2,405,648 Year 41 $ 3,277,179 $ 2,505,483 Year42 $ 3,413,182 $ 2,609,460 Year43 $ 3,554,829 $ 2,717,753 Year44 $ 3,702,355 $ 2,830,539 Year45 $ 3,856,002 $ 2,948,007 Year 46 $ 4,016,026 $ 3,070,349 Year47 $ 4,182,691 $ 3,197,769 Year 48 $ 4,356,273 $ 3,330.476 Year 49 $ 4,537,058 $ 3,488,691 Year50 $ 4,725,346 $ 3,612,641 Total $ 103,062,344 Avg Annual Cost $ 2,032,961 Avg Monthly Cost $ 169,413 Source: 15-16 Actuals 611512017 PDF-Page 15 rM c cw w -a �a -cs CL D Ur w "° CL LO a3aPa3P f a) QQ �L � Chi C O C* Cc. C).. Ch., C L i,f ✓, D Ej ,} 4 i-; u R7 (LS C6 fU � � Cy U c`�•) E E E E Q t3 C N pa L1 Ll CL LlLO RLo� a. f LL C) CtJ G7 O O ?r 1,/'% 0 C�7 (n G) 3n 3733n 3n ua %iJ; (ts r_ - - -0 "0 -0 a -0 i/% UY 0 S1 Cl C7,. C L CL CL CL r;; .. Q m 373 3n 0 in 0 3f) 0 /r s � E N W 0 W (D43 N 3%) tCP q3 dA p3 Qa C C C) C cu G1 CItDm co CU M tLCLCLCb LL m Q d C5 C7 4 Cf C3 C) C) �, W Q Q 0 0 LC) C) co CY5 co co h.. h. U) c N N N N Cl) C C^7 C") F S6 d p' d li U Cl CL Cx3 ft3 6q 6-� 6% (,.I W CJ) ❑ o a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ J ++ O Q 'u p N N N N L3'3 LC) LCB Loi%. C,) U) 1 u7 a <r r <r a _ C d z3 LL CL %9 U) (1) �^ (h CD CS C C7 C7 0 0 0 '5j W '- CSS m N 0 ++ C.7 a O C3 o O CD CD �% � 0 0) m C3 tI3 C 69 43 1137 LC) LC LO LO LC) Lf) :r- r- C+J ) r r r c^^• r r r r r 00 0 � i" r to p ,b.. f (µLS 413 C%, O q3 L3 %✓% 0 3n C� M!— = 0 t lU (T! 69.f73 69 £t? Ef} e3,l} 63 69 Z x 6� 69 C r N 00 pf C) O 0 co r co ctC") LC) N d J`' � C 0 CNV C L� � C7 I- F+ CS7 co C'7 i" r- r... .... yC140 ""C4 0 1` `" LO 0 C f]) ill C3) iii, CD :3 C7} 0i1) E C) 'C C7 CD r-- G'3 43 CN SR N j = CC '- N N 00 U W Q1 r Exhibit 6 - Update June 2017 Fire Vehicle Replacement Needs related to Lake Oroville Primary Impact.Area over a 50-year period Assumes replacement every 12 years, 4.15°10 50-year average National Consumer Price Index d!e tcle Rsp acem ent Replacement F"trortr ars Related Llcemaee fi tlan ' V, hic #„ T F'ra"ept l rte �+ Biggs E73 Engine 2026 710,32.0 8.521 ; 60,519 2038 $ 1,737,632 8.52% 148,046 2050 2,830,539 8.52% $ 241,162 2062 $ 3,070,349 8.52% 261,594 Richvale E71 Engine 2030 835,778 8,52'°1 71,208 2042 $ 1,361,452 8.52% 115,996 2054 2,217,755 8.52% 188,953 Greville E63 Engine 2030 835,778 8,52Q✓a 71,208 2042 $ 1,361,452 8.52% 115,996 2054 $ 2,217,755 8.52% $ 188,953 Kelly Ridge E64 Engine 2022 $ 603,694 8.52% $ 51,435 2034 $ 983,395 8.52% 83,785 2046 $ 1,601,915 8.52% $ 136,483 2058 $ 2,609,460 8.52% $ 222,326 Upper Ridge E33 Engine 2026 $ 710,320 2.45°1 $ 17,403 2038 $ 1,737,632 2.45°10 $ 42,572 2050 $ 2,.830,539 2.45% $ 69,348 2062 $ 3,070,349 2.45% $ 75,224 Durham E45 Engine 2030 $ 835,778 2.45% $ 20,477 2042 $ 1,361,452 2.45% $ 33,356 2054 2,217,755 2.45% $ 54,335 Palermo E72 Engine 2030 $ 835,778 2.45% $ 20,477 2042 $ 1,361,452 2.45% $ 33,356 2054 $ 2,217,755 2.45% $1 54,335 Gridley E74 Engine 2022 $ 603,694 2.45% $ 14,791 2034 $ 983„395 2.45% $ 24,093 2046 $ 1,601,915 2,45°1 $ 39,247 2058 $ 2,609,460 2.45% $ 63,932 PIF Page 1'7 Exhibit 7- Update June 2017 Butte County Communication. System Upgrade Costs Associated with. Project Motorola Proiect Actual Cost Replacement System One-time Costs $7,166,380 tpl + akct • 700 MHz to meet FCC requirements. • Eight(8) fined-radio sites located within. County borders—provides additional talk groups, coverage, and capacity • New microwave backhaul network to interconnect fixed-radio sites. • Redundancy. • New system equipment including fixed-site radio equipment, '9-1-1 Dispatch consoles, and approximately 1,000 handheld/mobile radios. C)n gorng Maintenance(4 year contract} $594,217 or 5148,555/year PDF-Page 18 w cli to CD c7 '� C1404 � C o �r m Qrn m Q) L9 eh CN cLO � CO -* ' wLO `c W co u N CL c7 cs E cv Co co C4 ro res > rasa tll r. C 4) r (""Nm , (L 1� . L53 0 C cU te1 X �1 r- CO IM fU w p t c�j y A N 457Lo 1 X17' rn C04J [!: i% a) IJ 0 >- co cn LQ Cy U s`' co u = cu c c 0Wo C! crt N i d �s cov Q> r� era w 7 tra 4 i unK" cq CI d c C'4 uj �, = s as cli a Z tZ co 04 2 Co U M- Q W m ccs c 'eq µ U co m uj Icri ,air W puC ,� Attachment A Butte County Property Tax Estimate-Lake Oroville Facilities -2017 Update 2006 Estimates by FMY Annual Property Tax-Alternate Annual Property Tax-Big Bend Hydro Use of Property and Alternate use of Excess Property investor Owned utility Of land developed over time in the same 1pHvate hydro plant/other land developed in Year failn-as the Cunvy.s,, halrd carne fashion as Che County asa whole) (dkro.nted...hfi—valrafi.n) 2006(FMY Study) $2,985,489 $3,265,488 $6,870,535 2007 $3,038,870 $3,323,875 $6,993,380 2008 $3,093,205 $3,383,306 $7,118,422 2009 $3,148,511 $3,443,799 $7,245699 2010 $3,204,806 $3,505,374 $7,375,252 2011 $3,262,108 $3,568,051 $7,507,122 2012 $3,320,435 $3,631,847 $7,641,349 2013 $3,379,804 $3,696,785 $7,777,976 2014 $3,440,,235 $3,762,883 $7,917,047 2015 $3,501,747 $3,830,164 $8,058,603 2016 $3,564,358 $3,898,647 $8,202,691 r'llFir�,�IFI,7�,,�IJY�IBM "I��p�1�r,�11,111,��llf�lfll�f�'ll�llfil"b"�",O,*"",�,�q��irl��'�f�""I�!"Ilriiy�,�)lellllv��,,�11 2018 $3,692,959 $4,039,309 $8,498,642 2019 $3,758,989 $4,111,532 $8,650,598 2020 $3,826,200 $4,185,046 $8,805,270 2021 $3,894,612 $4,259,875 $8,962,709 2022 $3,964,248 $4,336,041 $9,122,962 2023 $4,035,128 $4,413,570 $9,286,080 2024 $4,107,276 $4,492,484 $9,452,115 2025 $4,180,715 $4,572,810 $9,621,119 2026 $4,255,466 $4,654,572 $9,793,145 2027 $4,331,553 $4,737,795 $9,968,246 2028 $4,409,002 $4,922,507 $10,146,479 2029 $4,487,835 $4,908,734 $10,327,898 2030 $4,568,077 $4,996,502 $10,512,560 2031 $4,649',754 $5,095,839 $10,700,525 2032 $4,732,892 $5176,7'74 $10,891,850 2033 $4,817,516 $5,269,335 $11,086,597 2034 $4,903,653 $5,363,550 $11,284,825 2035 $4,991,331 $5,459,451 $11,486,598 2036 $5,0801575 $5,557,066 $11,691,978 2037 $5,171,416 $5,656,426 $11,901,031 2039 $5,263,881 $5,757',563 $12,113,821 2039 $5,357,999 $5,860,508 $12,330,416 2040 $5,453,900 55,965,294 $12,550,884 2041 $5,551,314 $6,071,953 $12,775,294 2042 $5,650,572 $6,180,520 $13,003,716 2043 $5,751,604 $6,291,028 $13,236,222 2044 $5,854,443 $6,403,511 $13,472,886 2045 $5,959,120 $6,518,006 $13,713,781 2046 $6,065,669 $6,634,548 $13,958,984 2047 $6,174,123 $6,753,174 $14,208,570 2048 $6,284,517 $6,873,920 $14,462,620 2049 $6,396,884 $6,996,826 $14,721,211 2050 $6,511,260 $7,121,929 $14,984,427 2051 $6,627,681 $7,249,269 $15,252,348 2052 $6,746,184 $7,378,886 $15,525,060 2053 $6,866,806 $7,510,821 $15,802,648 2054 $6,989,585 $7,645,114 $16,085,199 2055 $7,114,558 $7,781,809 $16,372,803 2056 $7,241,767 $7,920,948 $16,665,549 2057 $7,371,250 $8,062,574 $16,963,529 2058 $7,503,047 $8,206,733 $17,266,836 2059 $7,637,202 $8,353,470 $17,575,567 2060 $7,773,755 $8,502,830 $17,889,819 2061 $7,912,750 $8,654,860 $19209689 2062 $8,054,230 $8,809,609 $18�535:278 2063 $8,198,239 $8,967,125 $1B,866,689 2064 $8,344,824 $9,127,457 $19,204,025 2065 $8,494,029 $9,290,656 $19,547,393 2066 $8,645,903 $9,456,773 $19,896,900 2067 $8,800,491 $9,625,860 $20,252,657 �Wjlgvg, 'T" I "?Fmij�Milli 77 �M ,/0, A. g, 01�N NINON/, 40-year inflation factor=1.788%-SOURCE: Board of Equalization-letter to Assessors dated 12/13/16 PDF-Page 20 \, \ \ �\� APPENDIX C USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Resource List Oro ville Facilities Project (FERC No. 2100) Retrieved October 12, 2017 JM 10296.003 DRAFT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE INC:Explore Location littps://ecos.fNvs.gov/ipac/tocatioti/4V]'I'MLUDGBHEVFNX3LJWOIJ... 1PaC Information for Planning andConsultation U.S. Fish &Mnldllfe Service W res r li t Thi's report Is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat(collectively referred to as trust resources)under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)jurisdicdon that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below.The list may also Include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or Indirectly affected by activities In the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typicaily requires gathering additional site-specific(e.g,, vegetation/species surveys)and project-spel-C.iftc (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact uc infoematib""0&the USFWS office(s)with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read t1je,,nt 'ro d ti on to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFW§,Facilities, and NO Wetlands)for additional information applicable to the trust re!5ioy rces"addressed in that section. Location Butte and Yuba counties, California 4% Yuba City Local office Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office %, (916)414-6600 10 (916)414-6713 Federal Building I of 16 10/12/2017, 12:28 PM INC:Explore Location https://ecos.fws.-ov/ipac/location/4VITMLUDGBHEVFNX3UWOU... 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Sacramento,CA 95825-1846 tyx } t` 3} i .. 'S. E�. a 2 of 16 1011212017, 12:28 PM INC:Explore Location littl)s://ecos.I'Nvs.gov/il)ac/locatioii/4V]TMI-,LJDGBI'lEVI''NX3L)WOLJ... Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list Is the known or expected range of each species.Additional areas of Influence (AOI)for species are also considered.An AOI Includes areas outside of the species range If the species could be Indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population, even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change,the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species,Act requires Federal agencies to "requestof information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may b4,pr6sent in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted,perf'6lqedJ6'hded, or licensed, by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a specipiAist which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official"speapsIfs't from either the Regulatory Review section: in IPaC(see directions bel9w)-W',frbrfi the local field office directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS,,ton"t,,6r.,Te'n e/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by,,doirig the following: 1. Draw the project location acid"flick CONTINUE, 2. Click DEFINE PRQJECT. 3. Login (if directed'to do sg,,J. 4. Provide a,n,6me and description for your project. S. Click,REQUEST SPECIES LIST. L-isted,s'p eci6s-1 are managed by the Ecoiggical Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Service'. 1. Species listed under the Endangered..5pecies Act are threatened or endangered: IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed,for listing. See the listing gatus page for more information. The following species are potentially affected by activities In this location: Birds NAME STATUS 3 of 16 10/12/2017, 12:28 PM IPaC: Explore Location littl)s:Hecos.fxvs.gov/ipac/location/4VI'I'ML,UDGBI-IEVI"'NX3UWOtJ... Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened There Is proposed critical habitat for this species.Your location Is outside the critical habitat. https-,//ecosNm.goy/ecpiapedeaa%l Reptiles NAME STATUS Giant Garter Snake Thamnoph[s gigas Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4482 A )'Amphibians NAME STATUS California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii Tlir Itenied There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location overlaps the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891 Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog Rah" a"Sler"PEndangerede" There is final critical habitat forAhis spe,ciesYour location is outside the critical habitat,, https://ecos.fws.RoV/ee,D/sr)gciesl9529 Fis, STATUS h it Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside,the critical habitat b=s://ecos.fws.ggv/ecplspelcies/321 Steelhead Oncorhynchus(=Salmo) mykiss Threatened There Is final critical habitat for this species.Your location overlaps the critical habitat. httos*//ecos.-ftm.eov/eco/soecies/1 0 I" se 4 of 16 10/12/2017, 12:28 PM INC: Explore Location littps://ecos.t'NNs.gov/ipac/locatioii/4V[TMLUDGBIJEVFNX3UWOLJ,,. NAME STATUS Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmoceru:s californicus Threatened dimorphus There Is final critical habitat for this species.Your location Is outside the critical habitat. https:/Iecos.fm.&ov/ecp/�Speciesn850 Crustaceans NAME STATUS Conservancy Fairy Shrimp Branchinecia conservatio Endangered There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location:is outside the critical habitat. https.*//ecos,fws.gov/ecp/species/8246 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Thur "teneci There is final critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat. q, https://ecos:fws.gov/ecD/species/498 Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidur,w5pac�ardj Endangered There is final critical habitat for this species.'Y"6` o r location overlaps the critical habitat. w I https://ec s.fws.gov/eCD/'Sp6cie'sl2246 Flow eri h NIg, Plants ,NAME STATUS Butte County Meadowfoam Limnanthes floccosa ssp. Endangered californica There Is final critical habitat for this species.Your location overlaps the critical habitat. https://ecos;Ms.p-ovlecplspecies/4223 Greene's Tuctoria Tinctoria greenei Endangered There Is final critical habitat for this species.Your location Is outside the critical habitat httM://ecos.fws.Zov/egp/species/1 573 5 of 16 10/12/2017, 12:28 PM INC: F,xplore Location llttps:Hccos.fivs.,,ov/ipac/location/4VI'FN4[..UDGBHEVFNX3UWOLJ.., Slender Orcutt Grass Orcuttia tennis Threatened There Is final critical habitat for this species.Your location Is outside the critical habitat https:/Iecos.fWs.eov/ecp/s,pec Jes/1 063 Critical habitats Potential effects to critical habitat(s) In this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. This location overlaps the critical habitat for the following species: NAME TYPE Butte County Meaclowfoarn Limnanth,es floccosa ssp, Final californica https-//ecos.fvvs.gov/ecp/species/4223#crithab " California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii Fin https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891#crithab Chinook Salmon Oncorhynctius(=SaImIO)tsha�v"T's,,�ha" Final California Coastal ESU For information on why this critical habi Ijat appears for your project,even though Chirpok$alrn n is not on the list of potentially affected species k tris location,contact the local field office. —htt s,//eco .Us,� lecp�/M(Lcies/8091#trithab, Chino Salmon Oncorhynchus(=Salmo)tshawytscha Final 11 eyspring-run ESU For information on why this critical habitat appears for your project,even though Chinook Salmon is not on the list of potentially affected species at this location,contact the local field office. httos*//ecos.fws,ggWeco/species/8091#crithab Steelhead Oncorhynchus(=Salmo) mykiss Final Southern California DPS httpsWecosJWs,gov/eca/speclest1 907#0thab Steelhead Oncorhynchus(=Salmo) mykiss Final Central California Coast DPS https://ecostffugQWecp/spe_Clesi1 007#crithab 6 of 16 10/12/2017, 1128 PM INC:Explore Location littps://ccos.fNvs.gov/il)acilocatioii/4VII"ML.UDC-iBHEVI',NX3LJWOU... Steelhead Oncorhynchus(=Salmo) myRi5s, Final California Central Valley DPS httpNlle-cos.fm.my/eq2/species/1 0074critb-ab Steelhead Oncorhynchus(=Salmo) mykiss Final South-Central California Com DPS https:/Iecos.fws.Mle p1specles/1 007#crithab Steelhead Oncorhynchus(=Salmo) mykiss Final Northern California DPS httos:/Iecos:Ms.gay/egp/splecies/1 007#crithalb Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp Lepidurus packardi Final https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/secies/22464*crithab MirTrry birds l" Certain birds are protected under the Migratory BirdN4 Actand the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act-2. lk Any activitythat results in the t_akejtQ,.,�'fi pra.. r cap Inanvsuch ondu )of migratory birds or eagles is prohibited unless authorizer re, r. p.Wtto c ct t4p 7#7-- e, a bythe,US. Fish and Wildlife Service3. There are no provisions for allowing the take ofmigl,Otorqt4rds that are unintentionally killed or injured. Any person or organization who plans o"r" to I riducts activities that may result in the take of migratory birds is responsible f6r1complying with the appropriate regulations and implementing appropriate conspratiop Measures, as described below. 1.11,Th6"Migrata ry Birds TreatyAct of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 3,50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec.668(a) Additional Information can be found using the following links: • Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.goy/birds`/""management/manag-ed-5pecies/"" birds-of-conservation-coincern. phpI • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds h hNuOvIbirds Iroan aLrementlorolect-assessment-t-Q-ols::and-guidancw conservation-measures.php • Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fwvs.gov/migratorybirds Ipciffmanaeement/natlanwildest The birds listed below are USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern that might be affected by 7 of 16 10/12/2017, 12:28 PM INC: Explore Location littps:Hecos,f�vs.gov/ipac/locatioii/4V[TMLUDGBI-If-VFNX3tJWOIJ... activities In this location.The list does not contain: every bird you may find in this location, nor is It guaranteed that all of the birds on the list will be found on or near this location.To get a better idea of the specific locations where certain species have: been reported and their level of occurrence, please refer to resources such as the E-bird data MaDDIng tool (year-round bird sightings by birders and the general public)and Breeding Bird Surveys(relative abundance maps for breeding birds).Although It Is Important to try to avoid and minimize Impacts to all birds,special attention should be given to the birds on the list below.To get a list of all birds potentially present In your project area,visit the E-bird Explore Data Tool. NAME BREEDING SEASON Black Rail Lateral lus jamaicensis Breeds Mar 1 to Sep 15 https://ecos.fws. ov/ecp/spedes/7717 Black Swift Cypseloides niger Breeds Jun 15 to Sept https://ecus.fwus.gov/em/species/S1 Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia Breeds Ma�,11;5"to Aug 31 https://ecos.fws. ov/eco/soedes/9737 California Spotted Owl Stri: occidentalis occidentalls Breeds Mar 10 to Jun 15 httDS:,//ecos.fws.gov ecp/species/7266 California Thrasher Toxostorna redi4lyum""", Breeds Jan 1 toJul 31 Calliope Hummingbirdi"Stel'0l calliope Breeds May 1 to Aug 15 hitp!i,//ecos.fws.gov/g!��`` cies/9526 Cassih"s Fi h',c h 'Carpodacus cassind Breeds May 15 to Jul 15 ps,./lecos,fwsggv/ecp/species/9462 Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trich,as sinu�osa Breeds May,20 tojul 31 https;//ecos.fw.s,gpv/eg /gpecl,eWO84 Costa's Hummingbird Calypte costae Breeds Jan 15 to Jun 10 https://ecos.fws.gpWeW/species/9470 Lawrence's Goldfinch Carduells lawrencei Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20 bnps .Ilecos.%m.ggylec"/ pecles/94(A Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 30 httDs:/Iecos.fws.izov/ecp/specii.—d9408 8 of 16 10/1212017, 12:28 PM IPaC:Explore Location littps:t/ecos.f4vs.cov/iMac/locatioii/4'Vi,rML.LIDGB -1LVFNX—IUWOU... Long-billed Curlew hlumenius americanus Breeds elsewhere h s://eco .fws. v/pec / pedW5511 Marbled Godwit Urnosa fedoa Breeds elsewhere s./ s v ec /s ecies/ 1 Nuttall's Woodpecker Picui+des nuttal li'i Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20, ftslje KD/SDedest941 Q Oak T tmouse Baeolophus inornatus Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15 haps//ecos.fws. ov/ec /s ecies/9656 olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Breeds May 20 to A;tag 1''<<, https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/soecies/391� Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus Breeds lsrhre httl2s://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002 Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus `` Breeds elsewhere httos://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480 Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrines Breeds bear 5 to Sep 15 Song Sparrow h ejospi a mee,16dia pusillula Breeds Feb 20 to Sep 5 fps.,//ecus, s.goylec /s cies,/3509 Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus clerrentae Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 20 h1�p�'s:J/eos.fws,�ayJec J�species/4243 Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10 s://ews.f s.g rr/ecWspeclPV3910 Whimlbrel Numenius phaeopus Breeds elsewhere https,//ecos.fws.wWe:cpLspeclest943 White Headed.Woodpecker Picoldes albolarvatus Breeds May 1 to Aug 15 htt_ ps:ll cos fwvs®gov/ecp/sp+ecies/ 11 Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus Breeds May 1 to Jul 31 9 of 16 10/1.2/21117, 12:28 PM I PaC: 1"Xplore Location littps:Hecos.ftivs.gov/ipac/location/4V II'ML4dDGBHEVFNX3 MOLL. Willow Flycatcher Empidonaxtrafllii Breeds May 20 to Aug 31 https-/Iecos.fiNs.gQv/ec�/`speciggW Yellow-billed Magpie Pica nuttalli Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31 http§.agcos.fws.izov/ect)/spec e Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area.This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize Impacts to birds. Probability of Presence(ioo) Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in your project,§codntIps during a particular week of the year, (A year is represented as 12 4-week molpth )A taljer"bar indicates a higher probability of species presence.The survey effort(see h0ow)',,can"'be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have h3fo' er,,c6rifidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the, probability of presence score calculated?,Th" 01,6*t n is, done in three steps: 1 The probability of presence for each week"Js-"d Jtufat6d"as the number of survey events in I the week where the species was detected cliod'ed by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week;1,, w 2 thoelere 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the' 1 pT, babRity"of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2.To properly present t'l�ePatte`rn of presence across the year,the relative probability of presence,is'calcdlatecl. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence i rn ek for the: Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 2,,, )'1§the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25= 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3.The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, Inclusive.This Is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover our mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season( ) Yellow bars denote when the bird breeds in the Bird Conservation Region(s)in which your project lies. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, It does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort(i) Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars Indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the counties of your project area,The number of surveys is expressed as a range,for example,33 to 64 surveys. 10 of 16 10/12/2017, 1128 PM IPaC: Explore Location littps://ecos.l'kN,s.gov/ipac/locatioii/4V[I'N4LUDGBI IEVFNX3U41 OU... To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the,bar. No Data" A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order,to ensure delivery of currently relevant Information. nil probability of presence breeding season Isurvey effort —nodata SPECIES JAN FES MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Ocr NOV DEC Black Rail —— ———— ———— — ' % --- ---- --77, Black Swift Burrowing Owl California Spotted Owl California HIM 1111- All Thrasher Calliope —-- ———— ———— ---— Hummingb ———— ———— ————ird I Pit, 77 1 -——— ———— Cassin's Finch 4 Common I IlM, UIVAE CM Yellowthroat IF M Costa's Hummingbird, 'finch is Lew s Wooc�pecker 11131111 ill 19, 00 Long-WIled Curlew MHE 1UT1111111 $11,10 44 o SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Marbled Godwrit ———— —--- ———— —fill- ———— ———— —— Wood 's pecker NO NO MITI 111111 13110 V i I till dill 11111$1 $111141 HU $111 OakTitmouse KIM 111111111V $11IR 11,13 11,11,111 DO U11 93111101111 Iffil 11RI 411141 OlNe-sided — ---- ---- --- — -- 1 -- -- ---- Flywcher 04 11 of 16 10/12/2017, 12:28 PM INC; Explore Location htil)s:Hecos.fwvs.gov/ipac/locationJ4Vf'I'MLtJDGf3f-fEVFNX3UWOLJ.,, Rufbus ———— __ � X11 $_ --- 13 . 11111111 $ — ��;--- Ha�rrrrlrpgbCrd ---- ---- Short-bilked ---_ ---— _--— —_... Dowitcher Snowy Plat _— — _r — --_. __-- — — Sang Sparrow 131114 MEN MI'llI' 131 � 1414 19131111 111 41;� $11113 041 IM 131,1111 Spotted Towhee ff 1 $11111$114 111111311141110110 111110414 11 1 EM Tricolored f a �; 110 ___— — _ ll Blackbird 11 whimbrel ———— ———— _--- — ———— ———— ———— -- ———— ———— -- White Headed Woodpecker — _.._ V'I SPECIES JAIL FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 51? CaC9 NOV DEC Williamson's Sapsucker -- —_.-- -- —_.—_ i � � Nil —. ....,.__._.. —_.,—... .,., �_ ____ Willow Flycatcher —_ . � "� � .p ___... —_—.— Yellow-billed Magpie Tell me more about conservatlan measures i can Implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nation Me C nservati8 Nyleamea describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any ocation year round.Such measures are particularly important when birds are most likely to occurinPhe project area.To see when birds are most likely to occur in your project area,view the Probability cif Presence summary. 'Special attention^should,be made to look for nests and avoid nest destruction during therbre6ding season.The bent information about when birds are breeding,can be found in Birds.of North America(BNA)Online under the"Breeding Phenology"section of each species profile. Note that accessing this information may require a subscription.Additional measures and/or perm, Its may be advisable depending,on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of Infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does lPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource mist.Is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern(113 that might be affected by activities in your project location.These birds are of priority concern because It has been determined that without additional conservation actions,they are likely to become candidates for listing under the Cndang+er+ed Sippries Act(EMJ. The migratory bird list generated for your project Is derived from data provided by the Asian Knowledee N orlt(AKN).The AKN data is based on a growing collection ofsurvey.banding nd CltizeAclem datase The AKN list represents all birds reported to bre occurring,at some Wei throughout the year In the 1.2 of 16 10/12/2017, 12:28 PM INC: Explore Location lit(I)s:Hecos.ftivs,gov/ipic/locatioil/4VITML,tJDCjBIJEVI�-NX')U'4VOti.,. counties In which your project lies.That list Is then narrowed to only the Birds of Conservation Concern for your project area. Again,the Migratory Bird Resource list only Includes species of particular priority concern,and Is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area.Although It is Important to try to avoid and minimize Impacts to all birds,special attention should be made to avoid and minimize Impacts to birds of priority concern.To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area,please visit the Explore Data Tool. What does lPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are biased on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network(AKNy.This data is derived fromi a growing collection of survey,banding,and citizen science datasets. Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes' available. How do I know If a bird is breeding,wintering, migrating or present year-roun' ln� mi y`project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within,(Lie� breeding,wintering, migrating 4, or year-round),you may refer to the following resources:The TheCcimel fla,b,ofQrnlitholo Ali About Birds Bird Guide or(if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of",inte'rest.6pre),the Cornell Lab ofDfnithola.�w Neo,tropical Birds guide., If a bird entry on your migratory.,birospeci6s' list indicates a breeding season, it is probable the bird breeds in your project's counties"'a"t'�'s"PIrtillepdint'within the time-frame specified. if"Breeds elsewhere"is indicated,then the bird likely does not bn I�edyin your project area. Facilities W, * i4lif refuges ,e Any activity proposed on National Wildlife Refuge lands must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please, contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGES ATTHIS LOCATION, Fish hatcheries THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION. 13 of 16 1O/12/2017, 12:28 PM INC: Explore Location littl)s://ecos.fNvs.gov/ipac/location/4V['["MtUDGBIJEVFNX3IJWOtJ... Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S.Army Corps of Engngqm-Q19r!M This location overlaps the following wetlands: FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND PEIVII Ei PEMCh PEM1 H PEM1 F PEMC PEM1C FEMA PEM1A P,EMKAx PEM10 PEMKCx PEMCx PEMiAh PEMICh PEN11 Fh FRESHWATER F0RESftPVSkRUB'W' ETLAND PSSC _PFO J F`SSCX PSS/EM lC PSS1A PS-Si—C PSSA HOUK PFOAx PFO/SSC PFOCx FRESHWATER POND PUB PUB 14 of 16 10/12/2017, 12:28 PM IPaC: Explore Location littps://ccrs.F�vs,gav/ipacJlocatioii/4V["I'['•fl-.[Jf GBI-iEV NX3 J'O'(.J.., PABFx PUSC PUBFh P H h. PBS PUBKGX PUSH PUBH' PABKX PLJBKX PUBF LACK L1 U'BK L2UBHh L2UBH L2UBHx L2UBFx L2USC OTHER PUSCx PUSCh i; RIV RINE . . R2UBH RBUBH R2UBHx R2US R2USA, , R 'R�1S&3C 82Usi R2A.BKHx i Afiull description for each wetland code can be found at the (National Wetlands Inventory website: https://ecos.fm.gQMpac/Wetlandsidecode Data limitations The Service's objective of mapping wwedands and deepwater habitats Is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location,type and size of these resources.The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude Irmagery.Wetlands are Identified based on vegetation,visible hydrology and,geography.A margin of error Is Inherent In the use of Imagery,thus,detailed an-the-ground Inspection of any particular site may result In revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through Image analysis. 15 of 16 10/12/2017, 12:28 PM IPaC:Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/4VITMLUDGBHEVFNX3UWOU... The accuracy of Image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery,the experience of the image analysts,the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted.Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work.There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the Information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands.These habitats Include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters.Some deepwater reef communities(coral or tuberficid worm reefs)have also been excluded from the inventory.These habitats, because of their depth,go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions � Federal,state,and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may ii e,fideAnd describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory.There is no atterr pt,i�1 either the design or products of this inventory,to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction 4fxiny Federal,state,or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the re m..ato ry Pr,o e-, m§of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modificat'rgr sWitl in'�6i:adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal,state,or local,agendes to specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect sueh activities. 16 of 16 10/12/2017, 12:28 PM CES APPENDIX D Date of Listing of Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitats Under the Federal Endangered Species List 638�*93.1> JN: 16296.006 DRAFT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Lr) LO ca o cn a o cr ct ct 6j �i a o o c7 c ra 0 0 0a 0 a r0 0 i 1 f o 0 Ml a`J d' C) . . . � N 0 I C) a a s a a a a �Y M o o o o o o 0 o r5 M1O N rV r�R N ri0 N q t++7 �7 p o - © o 0 o r�P o 0 o r*4 rV r^➢ ri7 r+Y rV N r'+"7 fit f'1� fYY/I/ Yt� y +^J N N t"'•E (1V N N N 6f y r ;r ca, Cy 0... 0 � 0 � o cr o l� y ll y! )yf 2 o o •o •p o o o 0 0 a- CL [i. ei ne ry r*r ry nr ry r 1 N VY JV1 � UTo 0 0 0 0 0 "al aA a7 as a7 aa' w aJ al as aA a) W 41a a3' z z z z r " ' r r r r > a z " > r r r a >Ln u r f` ('N r4 -4 Ui 0 0 0 �, rA 06 rl o o 0 0 0 0 M1,4 0 0 o o o z o o 0 Z. 0 401 0 0 oo o 0 Q O N aM4 N rV SV N rW ('d f u.n to an y yr yr w e� bC w vn w w w w (U N d) `w O O .,y o o o ny o o o a 0 fl z z z z z z z z y z z z z z z vi la ua "r 'o Orr m v r� r*� ur a a v ry r- n n r4 r a a a o a a o cn r a.) m ria o C, asp w a H cn 0) M r, rs m - a a a a a a a Cn m m C M ca M a C cn m 0) 0) am al 0) a N N N ra r14 ry r14 H H H r H H j ra ry ri ra ra r 1 ri / "C3 'C? 'R �,S Zl {� l al al a} d a aJ a1 a1 �' N aJ fL al al a v v �' a�b aj aY C C C C C y c C C di ap C C C C C cu g� qy a! C C LU C ate.. �.r .+mowonate+ +moi ate+ ate+ N Cao OD = OD (i/1 fo C c C c C c C C �%� rc fa aCi N fn YCs ft9 f6 fl7 aj Rl aj ai ai tR f4 (A4 Sa fL as as w v _ d `7 a`A `.1 a -0 LF 'a3 � i� � f[y .c: L c L L L C W w F- Q F- I-- w W W W w E CL � aY 1 4a f9 c c �fy yi�P v a o u +n (f r ;a / � � `� ,,, •,� � � q- as Y w C! ,n C1 '. "L`I ,,� -C as „,� ",,�` C q •�`'• > -0 c > > u c 4j w z5 .car cI, 0 a w © aj a U Csr': C7 b .L7 Cr -c w tl Q v o ai .zj nnZ3 Qj z a `3 o u u c - 3 a Qj c` `, w > a ^ n C a' n i `L otz) 3 a a > a a c a, ca sa w ca ll i r/ v o W a to o rr -C. -L -C� -c -C -C C "Ca 4 W r+r C a 'yw q a.... M. t w, ti, w. c '� kl l:r q1 CS t"5 �.,"' -Cl ° of as r� u c e Cl o a r a a 0 0 Q a � Q E CD m u fqcc Ul _0 fl o 'Q o w a a, vcu „ UJ airu o w c a o m can. o ate» o `l ^ a� a� m za o '= m a aJ w c v @ 6? r IP r c p r u Ln o_ o �a 7 0 0 fa 411 Wl L.L S J 9 T) C y Ni 1 r( JJ ce a ala 'C o a cC n to o C an - Ln /� as o a e� a s � '- as c a 3 0 ) 0 l�t Ca as as o s tt 4 �' M 0 C Ctl m .w w-i c.a 4r1 v �fr9��''' l c`z ro �. .� 1 o CL .'�- c M W j' ai ,`>i: � 4n as aJ ca T sa E u o o z * : is ._ G In o cu "v �, Q o �(� 7• to — v- !t_ acs c4» as c!6 'A„7 a9 a ns U' r'.+ .� 0 4U al ba a sa CL w o u � cl CL as �y�i Cl) o v �a rn a '/ _ �u sa ro 4"7 na ro U u C] c o ar •C cu > ti, a �n h w ru c 7 ca a a Cr .a4 as n o rte ,a vel w" ° r tJ c UJ ci" a o ami m .._ ec a ro «r c c o m F tw, 3 a = 73 q "✓� c c o 0 0 c E ;, - ci s i b ar a1 �I�j %r� a s v a� o p �1 0 w CI as 0 ar m ro r ro w � sr o o w a 4..J' r..J C.i U r.,n to un G 'c""6' ? lb on FD U > v1 co T 1.7 Z u1 p; r-i <a ati