4.10 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 4.10.1 R S - SAFCA · On September 22, 2009, EPA released its final Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (Reporting Rule). The Reporting Rule is a response

4.10 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute cumulatively to global climate change. The proper context for addressing this issue in an EIR is in an assessment of cumulative impacts; it is unlikely that a single project would contribute significantly to climate change, but cumulative emissions from many projects could affect global GHG concentrations and the climate system. Unlike the locations of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of localized or regional concern, the specific location of GHG emissions are of limited concern. Rather, the total amount and types of GHG emissions ultimately have the most substantial effect on climate change.

4.10.1 REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “Endangerment” and “Cause or Contribute” Findings

On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the CAA:

► Endangerment Finding: The current and projected concentrations of the six key GHGs—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

► Cause or Contribute Finding: The combined emissions of these GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution that threatens public health and welfare.

Applies to the ability to regulate GHG emissions.

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule

On September 22, 2009, EPA released its final Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (Reporting Rule). The Reporting Rule is a response to the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (House of Representatives Bill 2764; Public Law 110-161), which required EPA to develop “…mandatory reporting of GHGs above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy….” The Reporting Rule applies to most entities that emit 25,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2-equivalents (CO2e) or more per year. Since 2010, facility owners have been required to submit an annual GHG emissions report with detailed calculations of the facility’s GHG emissions. The Reporting Rule also mandates compliance with recordkeeping and administrative requirements to enable EPA to verify annual GHG emissions reports. Applies to the regulation of GHG emissions.

North Sacramento Streams, Sacramento River East Levee, Lower American River, and Related Flood Improvements Project DEIR AECOM Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency 4.10-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

STATE

The legal framework for GHG emission reductions has come about through Executive Orders, legislation, and regulations. The major components of California’s climate change initiative are reviewed below.

Assembly Bill 1493

In 2002, then-Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1493, commonly referred to as the Pavley Bill. AB 1493 requires that the California Air Resources Board (ARB) develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve “the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and other vehicles determined by ARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the state.”

To meet the requirements of AB 1493, in 2004 ARB approved amendments to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) adding GHG emissions standards to California’s existing standards for motor vehicle emissions. Amendments to CCR Title 13, Sections 1900 and 1961 (13 CCR 1900, 1961), and adoption of Section 1961.1 (13 CCR 1961.1) require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet-average GHG emissions limits for all passenger cars, light-duty trucks within various weight criteria, and medium-duty passenger vehicle weight classes (i.e., any medium-duty vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating less than 10,000 pounds that is designed primarily for the transportation of persons), beginning with the 2009 model year. For passenger cars and light-duty trucks with a loaded vehicle weight (LVW) of 3,750 pounds or less, the GHG emission limits for the 2016 model year are approximately 37 percent lower than the limits for the first year of the regulations, the 2009 model year. For light-duty trucks with LVW of 3,751 pounds to gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 8,500 pounds, as well as medium-duty passenger vehicles, GHG emissions would be reduced approximately 24 percent between 2009 and 2016.California received a waiver from the EPA on June 30, 2009, to enable implementation of AB 1493 requirements.

Beginning in May 2010, ARB began working with EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the second generation passenger vehicle greenhouse gas regulations for model years 2017–2025. After assessing a range of technologies and associated costs to achieve varying levels of GHG reduction, in July 2011, a notice of intent committed automakers, California, and the Federal government to a series of actions that would enable the development of new national GHG standards. On December 2, 2011, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the national GHG program was issued, committing the Federal agencies to reevaluate existing regulations for model years 2022–2025. In January 2012, ARB approved new regulations, as part of the Low-Emission Vehicle III (LEV III) element of the Advanced Clean Cars program, which merged GHG emissions with all other tailpipe emissions into one set of requirements. Reductions under the new regulations would be 36 percent for cars and 32 percent for light-duty trucks from model year 2016–2025. After a review and public comment period, the ARB Board approved the LEV III amendments on November 15, 2012. Applies to on-road vehicles that would be used for project-related construction.

Executive Order S-3-05

Executive Order S-3-05, issued in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, set forth the following target dates by which Statewide GHG emissions would be progressively reduced: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and by 2050, reduce GHG

AECOM North Sacramento Streams, Sacramento River East Levee, Lower American River, and Related Flood Improvements Project DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.10-2 Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency

emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. Applies to significance thresholds aimed to achieve the emission reduction target.

Assembly Bill 32

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

AB 32 requires that ARB adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions levels and disclose how it arrives at the cap; institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap; and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the State achieves the reductions in GHG emissions necessary to meet the cap. AB 32 also includes guidance to institute emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner and conditions to ensure that businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the reductions. Applies to the thresholds of significance aimed to achieve the emission reduction targets.

Climate Change Scoping Plan

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

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


Executive Order S-1-07

Executive Order S-1-07 acknowledges that the transportation sector is the main source of GHG emissions in California. The order established a goal of reducing the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in California by a minimum of 10 percent by 2020. It also directed ARB to determine whether this Low Carbon Fuel Standard could be adopted as a discrete, early-action measure after meeting the mandates in AB 32. ARB adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard on April 23, 2009. Applies to fuel used by construction vehicles and equipment.

Senate Bill 97

SB 97, enacted in August 2007, recognizes climate change as a prominent environmental issue that requires analysis under CEQA. On December 30, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, as required by SB 97. These State CEQA Guidelines amendments provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in draft CEQA documents. The amendments became effective March 18, 2010. Applies to the ability to establish CEQA checklist questions for GHG emissions that apply to the proposed project.

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

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

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

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

REGIONAL AND LOCAL

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) regulates local air quality and air quality sources in the project study area. In the CEQA Guide to Air Quality Assessment, SMAQMD includes a GHG chapter that discusses the recommended approach to evaluating GHG emissions. SMAQMD states that GHG emissions should first be evaluated and addressed on a program level if possible. For project-level analyses, SMAQMD also includes a list of analysis expectations and methodologies for CEQA analyses. In addition, in November 2014, SMAQMD adopted GHG thresholds of significance that are discussed further in the


“Significance Criteria” subsection below. Applies to the significance thresholds and methodologies used to evaluate project-related GHG emissions.

Sacramento County General Plan

The following policies from the Sacramento County General Plan of 2005-2030 Land Use and Air Quality Elements regarding GHG emissions apply to the proposed project (Sacramento County 2011a:2, 4, and 6).

► Policy LU-115. It is the goal of the County to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This shall be achieved through a mix of State and local action[s]. (The proposed project would be a local action that could contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions.)

► Policy AQ-16. Prohibit the idling of on- and off-road engines when the vehicle is not moving or when the off-road equipment is not performing work for a period of time greater than five minutes in any one-hour period. (The proposed project is solely a construction project that would implement this policy.)

► Policy AQ-19. Require all feasible reductions in emissions for the operation of construction vehicles and equipment on major land development and roadway construction projects. (The proposed project is solely a construction project that could contribute to reduction of construction-related emissions.)

► Policy AQ-22. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from County operations as well as private development. (The proposed project is a private action/project that could help reduce GHG emissions from construction activities.)

City of Sacramento 2030 General Plan

The following policy from the City of Sacramento 2030 General Plan Environmental Resources Element regarding GHG emissions applies to the proposed project (City of Sacramento 2009). In addition, Appendix B to the 2030 General Plan contains a list of policies from each of the 2030 General Plan elements that has some relationship to climate change.

► ER 6.1.7 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal. The City shall work with the California Air Resources Board to comply with statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals as established in the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 for 2020 and any subsequent targets. (The proposed project would be subject to the GHG thresholds developed to meet the GHG reduction targets of AB 32, which has the potential to reduce GHG emissions.)

City of Sacramento Climate Action Plan

On February 14, 2012, to directly address the issue of climate change and GHG emissions, the City adopted its climate action plan (CAP). The intent of the CAP is to identify the nature of GHG emissions in the City and to implement policies, actions, and measures to reduce existing and future GHG emissions. A baseline GHG emissions inventory for the year 2005 was performed as part of the CAP development process. The baseline inventory determined that the City of Sacramento generated approximately 4.1 MMT of CO2e in 2005.

The CAP established GHG emissions reduction goals of 15 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020, 38 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2030, and 83 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2050. To


accomplish these GHG reduction goals, the CAP has developed strategies and measures that relate to the following topics of GHG reduction:

► Strategy 1: Sustainable Land Use ► Strategy 2: Mobility and Connectivity ► Strategy 3: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ► Strategy 4: Waste Reduction and Recycling ► Strategy 5: Water Conservation and Wastewater Reduction ► Strategy 6: Climate Change Adaptation ► Strategy 7: Community Involvement and Empowerment

Sacramento’s CAP meets the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15183.5; therefore, it is a “qualified CAP” that can be used to streamline CEQA review when projects are determined to be consistent with the CAP. With respect to this analysis, the proposed project will be evaluated for its consistency with the CAP’s strategies and measures, for the components of the proposed project that fall under the jurisdiction of the City of Sacramento.

Sacramento County Climate Action Plan

The County of Sacramento adopted the first component of a CAP, the Strategy and Framework Document, on November 11, 2011. The document describes the County’s program to reduce GHG emissions, mitigate impacts, manage natural resources, and prepare for and adapt to climate change. In 2009, the County worked with other local agencies, including the City of Sacramento, to prepare a GHG emission inventory based on 2005 emission sources and quantities. From those results, the County set a target of reducing community GHG emissions in unincorporated County areas by 13 percent, or approximately 650,600 metric tons of CO2e, and County government-generated emissions by 13 percent (15,600 metric tons of CO2e) by the year 2020 (Sacramento County 2011b).

The CAP presents methods for accomplishing its goals and they are divided up into five sectors:

► Strategy 1: Transportation and Land Use ► Strategy 2: Energy ► Strategy 3: Water ► Strategy 4: Waste Management and Recycling ► Strategy 5: Agriculture and Open Space

The next step for the CAP would include County Government Operations and Communitywide Plans, which would outline way for the County to reduce GHG from its facilities, vehicles, equipment, and infrastructure and for the community to mitigate GHG emissions and prepare for climate change, respectively.

4.10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

NORTH SACRAMENTO STREAMS LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS

GHGs play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. A portion of the solar radiation that enters the earth’s atmosphere is absorbed by the earth’s surface, and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. This infrared radiation (i.e., thermal heat) is absorbed by GHGs within the earth’s atmosphere.


As a result, infrared radiation released from the earth that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the “greenhouse effect,” is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on the earth.

GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) sources, and are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. Natural sources of GHGs include the respiration of humans, animals and plants; decomposition of organic matter; volcanic activity; and evaporation from the oceans. Anthropogenic sources include the combustion of fossil fuels by stationary and mobile sources, waste treatment, and agricultural processes. The following GHGs are widely accepted as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change:

► CO2, ► methane, ► nitrous oxide, ► HFCs, ► PFCs, ► sulfur hexafluoride, and ► nitrogen trifluoride.1

Natural sources of CO2 include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; and evaporation from oceans; anthropogenic sources include burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Methane is the main component of natural gas and is associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Nitrous oxide is a colorless GHG that results from industrial processes, vehicle emissions, and agricultural practices. HFCs are synthetic chemicals used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons in automobile air conditioners and refrigerants. PFCs are produced as a byproduct of various industrial processes associated with aluminum production and the manufacturing of semiconductors. Sulfur hexafluoride is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable GHG used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment and in semiconductor manufacturing. Nitrogen trifluoride is used in the electronics industry during the manufacturing of consumer items, including photovoltaic solar panels and liquid-crystal-display (LCD) television screens.

Global warming potential (GWP) is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to CO2. The GWP of a GHG is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the gas’s “atmospheric lifetime” (i.e., the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere). The reference gas for GWP is CO2, which has a GWP of 1. The GWPs of other GHG pollutants are then determined relative to CO2. For example, the other main GHGs that have been attributed to human activity include methane, which has a GWP of 28, and nitrous oxide, which has a GWP of 265 (IPCC 2013). Thus, 1 ton of methane has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 28 tons of CO2. GHGs with lower emission rates than CO2 may still contribute to climate change because they are more effective at absorbing outgoing infrared radiation than CO2 (i.e., they have a high GWP). The CO2e is used to account for the different GWP potentials of GHGs to absorb infrared radiation.

1 Nitrogen trifluoride is recognized by the State of California as a GHG (California Health and Safety Code Section 38505[g]).


Climate Change Trends

Warming of the climate system is now considered to be unequivocal, with global surface temperature increasing approximately 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) over the last 140 years (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2013). The causes of this warming have been identified as both natural processes and human actions. The IPCC concluded that variations in natural phenomena, such as solar radiation and volcanoes, produced most of the warming from preindustrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward. However, since 1950, increasing GHG concentrations resulting from human activity, such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation, have been determined with 95 percent certainty to be responsible for most of the observed temperature increase (IPCC 2013).

Climate Change Effects

During the same period when increased global warming has occurred, many other changes have occurred or are predicted to occur in other natural systems. Sea levels have risen; precipitation patterns throughout the world have shifted, with some areas becoming wetter and others drier; snowlines can rise, resulting in changes to the snowpack, runoff, and water storage; increased drought and wildfire risks; and numerous other conditions have been observed. Although it is difficult to prove a definitive cause-and-effect relationship between global warming and other observed changes to natural systems, there is a high level of confidence in the scientific community that these changes are a direct result of increased global temperatures caused by the increased presence of GHGs in the atmosphere (IPCC 2013).

According to the City of Sacramento CAP (City of Sacramento 2012), climate change is expected to affect the Sacramento region in the following ways:

► variable precipitation patterns, with the possibility of reduced average rainfall;

► reduced snowpack and snowline at higher elevations;

► earlier, hotter, more frequent, and longer heat waves;

► more frequent and extreme storm events and associated flood risk;

► diminished air quality;

► levee failure induced by sea level rise, leading to critical infrastructure damage in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (Delta);

► increased pressure on water supplies and diminished water quality;

► increased climate-related illnesses (from factors such as extreme heat, air quality, and disease-bearing vectors);

► loss of natural habitat and agricultural productivity; and

► compromised energy supply and security.


Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources

GHG emissions contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities. To account for and regulate GHG emissions, sources of GHG emissions are grouped into emission categories. The ARB identifies the following categories, which account for most anthropogenic GHG emissions generated in California:

► Transportation: On-road motor vehicles, recreational vehicles, aviation, ships, and rail.

► Electric Power: Use and production of electrical energy.

► Industrial: Mainly stationary sources (e.g., boilers and engines) associated with process emissions.

► Commercial and Residential: Area sources, such as landscape maintenance equipment, fireplaces, and consumption of natural gas for space and water heating.

► Agriculture: Agricultural sources that include off-road farm equipment; irrigation pumps; crop residue burning (CO2); and emissions from flooded soils, livestock waste, crop residue decomposition, and fertilizer volatilization (methane and nitrous oxide).

► High-GWP Gases: Refrigerants for stationary- and mobile-source air conditioning and refrigeration, electrical insulation (e.g., sulfur hexafluoride), and various consumer products that use pressurized containers.

► Recycling and Waste: Waste management facilities and landfills, primarily CO2 emissions from combustion and methane from landfills and wastewater treatment.

State Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory

ARB performs an annual GHG inventory for emissions of the major GHGs. As shown in Exhibit 4.10-1, California produced 458 MMT of CO2e in 2012 (ARB 2014b). Combustion of fossil fuels in the transportation category was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2012, accounting for 37 percent of total GHG emissions in the State. The transportation category was followed by the industrial category, which accounts for 22 percent of total GHG emissions in California, and the electric power category (including in- and out-of-State sources), which accounts for 21 percent of the State’s total GHG emissions.

SACRAMENTO RIVER EAST LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS

The environmental setting for GHGs in the Sacramento River East Levee Improvements area would be the same as described above for the North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements.

AMERICAN RIVER AND BEACH LAKE LEVEES HIGH-HAZARD LEVEE ENCROACHMENT AND VEGETATION REMOVAL

The environmental setting for GHGs in the American River and Beach Lake Levees High-Hazard Levee Encroachment and Vegetation Removal areas would be the same as described above for the North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements.


Source: ARB 2014b

Exhibit 4.10-1. 2012 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector

NATOMAS EAST MAIN DRAINAGE CANAL/STEELHEAD CREEK CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN

The environmental setting for GHGs related to the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC)/Steelhead Creek Corridor Management Plan (CMP) would be the same as described above for the North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements.

4.10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

METHODOLOGY

The proposed project’s construction-related GHG emissions were modeled using the same methods and assumptions described in Section 4.4, “Air Quality” of this DEIR. Construction assumptions provided for the proposed activities in the project study area were used to model both air quality and GHG emissions. CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2 and EMFAC2011 both provide emission factors for GHG emissions in addition to criteria air pollutant emissions (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA] 2013; ARB 2013. CalEEMod can also estimate project construction-related GHG emissions from construction equipment and EMFAC2011 provides GHG emission factors for material haul trucks and construction worker vehicles. GHG emissions generated by construction activities would be primarily in the form of CO2. All construction-related


GHG emissions were calculated for annual (MT CO2e per year) and total (i.e., MT CO2e over the entire construction period) to compare with the applicable threshold of significance.

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The thresholds for determining the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the environmental checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended. The proposed project would have a significant impact on GHGs if implementation of the proposed project would:

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

► conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

As stated in Appendix G, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the above determinations. In November 2014, SMAQMD adopted thresholds of significance for stationary sources, and the construction and operational emissions of land use development projects (SMAQMD 2014). SMAQMD GHG thresholds of significance concepts recommend that a proposed project’s GHG emissions be considered significant if:

► the annual construction-related emissions of a land use development project exceed 1,100 MT CO2e/yr (SMAQMD 2014);

► the annual operational emissions of a land use development project exceed 1,100 MT CO2e/yr or 900 MT CO2e/yr (SMAQMD 2014); or

► the annual emissions of a stationary source exceed 10,000 MT CO2e/yr (SMAQMD 2014).

Because the proposed project would only include short-term, temporary construction emissions, for the purposes of this analysis, SMAQMD’s annual construction threshold of significance (i.e., 1,100 MT CO2e) has been used to evaluate each year of construction emissions. Therefore, if annual construction-related GHG emissions would exceed 1,100 MT CO2e in any year of construction, the proposed project’s construction emissions would be considered significant.

Issues Not Discussed Further in this EIR

Long-Term Changes to Operational Activities and Emissions—Following completion of levee improvements in the North Sacramento Streams and Sacramento River East Levee Improvements areas, periodic inspections and maintenance activities would continue to occur to check for potential damages to the levee structures, ensure no further encroachment or vegetation issues, and implement the Conservation Strategy. These inspection and maintenance activities for all project elements occur under existing conditions and the proposed levee improvements are not anticipated to cause a net increase in inspections or maintenance activities. Therefore, because implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a net change in operational emissions, the proposed project’s operational emissions would be nominal and this impact is not evaluated further in this EIR.


IMPACT ANALYSIS

IMPACT GHG-1

Temporary, Short-Term Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Construction activities associated with levee improvements, encroachment removal, vegetation management, and the Conservation Strategy would generate annual GHG emissions that exceed the SMAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, this impact would be significant for the North Sacramento Streams and Sacramento River East Levee Improvements areas. The GHG emissions generated by construction during the encroachment removal, vegetation management, and Conservation Strategy activities in the American River and Beach Lake Levees High-Hazard Levee Encroachment and Vegetation Removal area would not exceed the SMAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

During construction of the proposed project, exhaust-related GHG emissions would be generated by sources such as heavy-duty off-road equipment, material haul trucks, and worker-commute vehicles. Construction-related GHG emissions would only last for the duration of construction activities and would cease following completion of the proposed project. However, unlike air quality emissions that are evaluated on a localized and regional basis with respect to ambient air quality standards, because of the long atmospheric lifetimes of GHG emissions, they have an effect on a global basis. Therefore, although construction activities and subsequent GHG emissions would be short-term and temporary, because of the atmospheric lifetimes of GHG emissions and their long-term ability to continue contributing to the climate change, the total amount of GHG emissions from a project are considered.

North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements

Table 4.10-1 presents the construction-related GHG emissions resulting from levee reconstruction, encroachment removal, vegetation management, and the Conservation Strategy. The North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements area elements are anticipated to be completed in a single construction season and would last approximately 8 months. The annual emissions associated with construction in the North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements were compared with the proposed SMAQMD threshold of significance.

Table 4.10-1. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements Area

Construction Phase Emissions (MT CO2e) Mobilization 2.4

Slope Stripping 13.0

Gravel Crest to Stockpile 7.6

Gravel Crest to Waste 7.6

Degrade Levee to Waste (On-site Disposal) 15.0

Degrade Levee to Waste (Grade Raising) 14.4

Degrade Levee to Blending 84.8

Setback Borrow Import for Blending 25.4

Setback Wall Excavation to Waste 8.2

Setback Wall Construction 222.1

Restore Levee Crest 599.6

Restore Levee Crest Gravel 14.7


Table 4.10-1. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements Area

Construction Phase Emissions (MT CO2e) Cutback Toe Excavation to Waste 22.1

Cutback Toe Excavation to Blending 72.3

Excavate and Haul Cutback Excavation to Waste 12.5

Excavate and Haul Cutback Excavation to Blending 19.8

Cutback Wall Construction 138.9

Cutback Wall Import from Borrow for Toe 19.7

Cutback Wall Toe Construction 604.4

Rock Slope Protection 24.6

Hydroseeding 4.0

Conservation Strategy 23.8

Total Construction Emissions1 1,956.9

SMAQMD Threshold 1,100

Notes: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; SMAQMD = Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 1 All North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements area construction emissions would occur in year 2016, which would be the only

construction components occurring in that year. As discussed in Section 4.4, “Air Quality,” it is possible that North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements area construction emissions could extend into year 2017 where they would occur simultaneously with Sacramento River East Levee Improvement area construction activities. However, for the purposes of estimating and presenting the maximum annual emissions associated with each project component, all North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvement area construction activities were assumed to occur in 2016. See Mitigation Measure GHG-1 for a discussion of its implications with respect to carbon offset credits.

Source: Data modeled by AECOM in 2014

As shown above in Table 4.10-1, the annual construction-related GHG emissions associated with construction of levee improvements, encroachment removal, vegetation management, and the Conservation Strategy in the North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements area would exceed the SMAQMD construction threshold of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that might have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, these proposed project elements would have a significant impact. Mitigation Measures GHG-1, AIR-1a, and AIR-1c, discussed below, have been developed to address this impact.

Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1a (Implement Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Basic Construction Emission Control Practices).

Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1c (Use Tier 3 Construction Equipment For At Least 15 Percent of Equipment).

Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Purchase Carbon Offset Credits (If Required).

SAFCA shall purchase carbon offset credits to offset the proposed project’s emissions. As determined in Table 4.10-1, the North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements area would need to offset approximately 856 MT CO2e, which would be verified by SMAQMD before carbon offsets are purchased. Thus, as noted above, if construction activities associated with the North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvement area


were to extend into year 2017 and overlap with Sacramento River East Levee Improvements area construction activities, or any changes were to occur during the construction of the proposed project, those potential changes in annual emissions would be calculated and reflected in the amount of carbon offsets required. Carbon offset credits shall be purchased from programs that have been approved by ARB and/or SMAQMD. Carbon offset credits should be purchased to reduce annual construction emissions to 1,100 MT CO2e/year or that would achieve a 21.7 percent reduction from business-as-usual emissions (i.e., unmitigated emissions without Mitigation Measure AIR-1).

Timing: Mitigation Measures AIR-1a and AIR-1c—during construction activities. Mitigation Measure GHG-1—prior to the start of construction activities.

Responsibility: Sacramento Flood Control Agency.

Significance after Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1a and AIR-1c would reduce construction-related GHG emissions through efficient operation of construction equipment engines, increased tier engines used during construction, and minimization of equipment idling when not in use; however, these measures would not reduce GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would reduce the remaining construction emissions resulting from construction of proposed project elements in the North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements area to a less-than-significant level because SAFCA would contribute to an ARB- or SMAQMD-approved carbon offset program.

Sacramento River East Levee Improvements

Table 4.10-2 presents the construction-related GHG emissions resulting from levee reconstruction, encroachment removal, vegetation management, and the Conservation Strategy. The Sacramento River East Levee Improvements area construction activities are anticipated to be completed in two construction seasons that would last approximately 8 months each, for a total of 16 months. The annual construction emissions associated with each Sacramento River East Levee Improvements area construction season (i.e., years 2017 and 2018) were compared with the proposed SMAQMD threshold of significance.

Table 4.10-2. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Sacramento River East Levee Improvements Area

Construction Phase Emissions (MT CO2e) Year 2017 Construction1 1,356.0

Mobilization 13.2

Vegetation and Encroachment Removal 31.1

Levee Degradation for Cutoff Wall Installation 198.6

Cutoff Wall Installation 404.7

Construction of Stability Berm/Toe Drains 266.2

Utility Relocation 61.3

Levee Reconstruction 355.0

Site Restoration and Demobilization 8.1



Table 4.10-2. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Sacramento River East Levee Improvements Area

Construction Phase Emissions (MT CO2e) Year 2018 Construction1 1,510.2

Mobilization 18.0

Vegetation and Encroachment Removal 15.5

Levee Degradation for Cutoff Wall Installation 199.6

Cutoff Wall Installation 401.0

Bank Erosion Repairs 343.8

Utility Relocation 60.8

Levee Reconstruction 356.8

Relief Wall Installation 58.1

Site Restoration and Demobilization 38.9



Notes: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; SMAQMD = Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 1 Represents the annual emissions that would occur in that given construction year. 2 Construction of the proposed project elements in the Sacramento River East Levee Improvements area would occur over two construction

seasons. Each season’s GHG emissions are compared to SMAQMD’s threshold of significance. As discussed above, it is possible that a portion of North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvement area construction activities could extent into year 2017 and overlap with the first year of the Sacramento River East Levee Improvements area construction activities. Nevertheless, as described in Mitigation Measure GHG-1, SMAQMD would verify the actual annual construction emissions that would require carbon offset credits.


As shown above in Table 4.10-2, the project’s annual construction-related GHG emissions associated with the Sacramento River East Levee Improvements area in year 2017 and 2018 would exceed SMAQMD’s threshold of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that might have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, the proposed project elements would have a significant impact. Mitigation Measures AIR-1a, AIR-1c, and GHG-1, described below, have been developed to address these impacts.

Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1a (Implement Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Basic Construction Emission Control Practices).

Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1c (Use Tier 3 Construction Equipment for At Least 15 Percent of Equipment).

Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1 (Purchase Carbon Offset Credits, [If Required]).

Timing: Mitigation Measures AIR-1a and AIR-1c—during construction. Mitigation Measure GHG-1—prior to the start of construction.

Responsibility: Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.


Significance after Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1a and AIR-1c would reduce construction-related GHG emissions through efficient operation of construction equipment engines, increased tier engines used during construction, and minimization of equipment idling when not in use; however, these measures would not reduce GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would reduce the remaining construction emissions resulting from construction of the Sacramento River East Levee Improvements area project elements to a less-than-significant level because SAFCA would contribute to an ARB- or SMAQMD-approved carbon offset program.

American River and Beach Lake Levees High-Hazard Levee Encroachment and Vegetation Removal

Construction associated with encroachment removal, vegetation management, and the Conservation Strategy in the American River and Beach Lake Levees High-Hazard Levee Encroachment and Vegetation Removal area is anticipated to be completed in a single construction season (i.e., less than 1 year). The annual emissions associated with construction activities in the American River and Beach Lake Levees High-Hazard Levee Encroachment and Vegetation Removal area were modeled and compared with the SMAQMD threshold of significance, as shown in Table 4.10-3.

Table 4.10-3. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the American River and Beach Lake Levees High-Hazard Levee Encroachment and Vegetation Removal Area

Construction Phase Emissions (MT CO2e) Encroachment Removal and Vegetation Management 57.0


Total Construction Emissions1 92.7


Notes: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; SMAQMD = Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 1 All American River and Beach Lake Levees High-Hazard Levee Encroachment and Vegetation Removal area construction emissions were

assumed to occur in year 2016, which would coincide with the North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements area. As described in Mitigation Measure GHG-1, SMAQMD would verify the actual annual construction emissions that would require carbon offset credits.


As shown above in Table 4.10-3, individually, the proposed project’s construction-related GHG emissions resulting from encroachment removal, vegetation management, and the Conservation Strategy in the American River and Beach Lake Levees High-Hazard Levee Encroachment and Vegetation Removal area would not exceed SMAQMD’s construction threshold of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that might have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, these proposed project elements would have a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.

Natomas East Main Drainage Canal/Steelhead Creek Corridor Management Plan

Construction associated with the NEMDC/Steelhead Creek CMP is anticipated to be completed in a single construction season (i.e., less than 1 year). The annual emissions associated with NEMDC/Steelhead Creek CMP construction activities were modeled and compared with the SMAQMD threshold of significance, as shown in Table 4.10-3.


As shown above in Table 4.10-4, individually, the proposed project’s construction-related GHG emissions resulting from the NEMDC/Steelhead Creek CMP would not exceed SMAQMD’s construction threshold of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that might have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, this proposed project element would have a less-than-significant impact.

Table 4.10-4. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal/Steelhead Creek Corridor Management Plan

Construction Phase Emissions (MT CO2e) Natomas East Main Drainage Canal/Steelhead Creek Corridor Management Plan

65.3

Total Construction Emissions1 65.3


Notes: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; SMAQMD = Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 1 All Natomas East Main Drainage Canal/Steelhead Creek Corridor Management Plant area construction emissions were assumed to occur

in year 2016, which would coincide with the other activities planned in the North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements area. As described in Mitigation Measure GHG-1, SMAQMD would verify the actual annual construction emissions that would require carbon offset credits.



IMPACT GHG-2

Conflict with an Applicable GHG Emissions Reduction Plan. The intent of the proposed project is to upgrade and improve existing flood protection infrastructure in Sacramento County, which would protect and prevent against potential adverse climate change impacts. This is consistent with the goals of the updated AB 32 Scoping Plan and 2009 California Statewide Adaptation Strategy to avoid detrimental impacts of climate change. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant for the entire project study area.

North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements

Although implementation of the proposed project would cause temporary and short-term construction-related GHG emissions, the intent, purpose, and function of the proposed project aligns with the goals of the AB 32 Scoping Plan to protect against the detrimental effects of climate change. The proposed project would not be typical land use development project that would support populations or businesses. Rather, the levee reconstruction, encroachment removal, and vegetation management activities would improve levees along the Sacramento and American Rivers to provide improved flood protection to the densely populated City of Sacramento and some unincorporated Sacramento County areas. In addition, the Conservation Strategy element, which would be implemented throughout the project study area, would help offset disturbances resulting from levee reconstruction efforts. The proposed project would provide flood protection for up to 475,122 residents and 190,911 homes along with supporting commercial services. The area’s residents and businesses would be susceptible to the effects of climate change, primarily flood events, without proper upgrades and improvements to the existing levee structures. Both the North Sacramento Streams and Sacramento River East Levee Improvements areas would have the same purpose and would provide similar types of levee improvements and upgrades; therefore, this analysis evaluates both components together.


Although the 2009 California Statewide Adaptation Strategy (2009 CAS)2 is not necessarily a GHG emission reduction plan, it provides the structure for how the State plans to combat the detrimental effects of and major threats from climate change. The climate change impact assessment contained in the 2009 CAS identified floods (among heat waves, wildfires, and droughts) as likely being one of the earliest climate change impacts experienced in California (California Natural Resource Association [CNRA] 2009). The Updated AB 32 Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) cites the need to “reinforce and buffer our State from the increasing impacts of climate change, including drought, flood, and forest fires” (ARB 2014a). The Scoping Plan also acknowledges that potential floods could threaten freshwater supplies in the Delta. The existing levee structures throughout the State not only protect areas such as the City of Sacramento, but also “critical infrastructure such as roads and highways” (ARB 2014a). Therefore, in addition to reducing GHG emissions, which is the primary goal of the Scoping Plan, it is also critical to implement actions and projects that would prevent, avoid, and minimize the detrimental impacts of climate change. These types of projects would protect existing populations, infrastructure, and resources, but would also help avoid rebuild and repair expenditures, losses and disruptions to economic activities, and reduction in the quality of life of local residents in the case that a flood event impacted the Sacramento region. Emergency response activities and rebuilding efforts would generate substantial GHG emissions resulting from construction equipment, debris haul trucks, and emergency and evacuation vehicles that could be avoid or minimized through climate adaptation actions such as the proposed project. Therefore, although the proposed project is not a GHG reduction strategy and is not a land use development that would more efficiently support populations and businesses, it would guard against the detrimental impacts of climate change and would proactively prevent future GHG emissions associated with climate change disaster response activities.

Considering the information above, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals of the 2009 CAS and Scoping Plan to protect against the detrimental effects of climate change without impeding current economic growth. Therefore, intent and purpose of the proposed project would not conflict with the Scoping Plan or 2009 CAS. Therefore, the proposed project elements would have a less-than-significant impact.


Sacramento River East Levee Improvements

The Sacramento River East Levee Improvements area elements would be similar to those of the North Sacramento Streams Improvements area in that they would include levee reconstruction, encroachment removal, vegetation management, and the Conservation Strategy. See the discussion above for North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements area for a more detailed analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the 2009 CAS and Scoping Plan. Considering this information, the Sacramento River East Levee Improvements area would also be consistent with the goals of the 2009 CAS and Scoping Plan to protect against the detrimental effects of climate change without impeded current economic growth. The intent and purpose of the proposed project would not conflict with the Scoping Plan or 2009 CAS. Thus, the proposed project elements would have a less-than-significant impact.


2 The 2009 California Statewide Adaptation Strategy is current in the process of being updated. However, at the time of this writing, the new 2013 update to the California Statewide Adaptation Strategy has not yet been formally adopted.


American River and Beach Lake Levees High-Hazard Levee Encroachment and Vegetation Removal

The American River and Beach Lake Levees High-Hazard Encroachment and Vegetation Removal area elements would be similar to those of the North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements area in that they would include encroachment removal, vegetation management, and the Conservation Strategy, but would not include levee reconstruction activities. See the discussion above for North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements area for a more detailed analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the 2009 CAS and Scoping Plan. Considering this information, the American River and Beach Lake Levees High-Hazard Levee Encroachment and Vegetation Removal area would also be consistent with the goals of the 2009 CAS and Scoping Plan to protect against the detrimental effects of climate change without impeded current economic growth. The intent and purpose of the proposed project would not conflict with the Scoping Plan or 2009 CAS. Thus, the proposed project elements would have a less-than-significant impact.


Natomas East Main Drainage Canal/Steelhead Creek Corridor Management Plan

The NEMDC/Steelhead Creek CMP construction activities would be similar to encroachment removal and vegetation management construction activities in terms of level of intensity (e.g., daily number and hours of construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction workers). The CMP would establish a long-term channel maintenance program to maintain a barrier-free, single thread low-flow channel in NEMDC/Steelhead Creek and the lower 1.5 miles of Dry, Robla, and Arcade Creeks east of NEMDC/Steelhead Creek. The CMP would help establish a riparian tree corridor and continuous overhead canopy along the banks of the low-flow channel, and limit the channel floodplain bench that extends from bank to levee toe to growths of annual and perennial herbaceous vegetation, and widely scattered small shrubs. See the discussion above for North Sacramento Streams Levee Improvements area for a more detailed analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the 2009 CAS and Scoping Plan. Considering this information, the NEMDC/Steelhead Creek CMP would also be consistent with the goals of the 2009 CAS and Scoping Plan to protect against the detrimental effects of climate change without impeded current economic growth. The intent and purpose of the proposed project would not conflict with the Scoping Plan or 2009 CAS. Thus, this proposed project element would have a less-than-significant impact.


RESIDUAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

The impact from potential conflicts with an applicable GHG emissions reduction plan would be less than significant. Therefore, no residual significant effects would occur.

Impacts associated with generation of GHGs from project-related construction activities would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1a, AIR-1c, and GHG-1 because any GHG emissions that continue to exceed SMAQMD’s construction-related GHG threshold after Mitigation Measure AIR-1a and AIR-1c would be offset through implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 (i.e., purchase carbon offsets, if required, to mitigate emissions to a less-than-significant level).


Documents

4.10 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 4.10.1 R S - SAFCA · On September 22, 2009, EPA released its final Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (Reporting Rule). The Reporting Rule is a response