General Conformity 

Applicability Analysis for the 

Clean Air Act 

 

Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Project, California 

Mid-Pacific Region 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Region or Office Designation 

City, State March 2007 
Mission Statements 

The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to 

our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to 

Indian Tribes and our commitment to island communities. 

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect 

water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound 

manner in the interest of the American public. 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Region or Office Designation 

City, State March 2007 

General Conformity 

Applicability Analysis for the 

Clean Air Act 

 

Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction 

Project, California 

Mid-Pacific Region 

prepared by 

 

A
Contents 

Page 

1.0 General Conformity Applicability Analysis ......................................................1 

 1.1 General Conformity Background........................................................1 

2.0 Emission Calculation Methodology...................................................................2 

 2.1 Operating Durations............................................................................3 

 2.2 On-Site Grading and Asphalt Paving..................................................3 

 2.3 On-Site Construction Equipment Emissions ......................................3 

 2.4 Off-Site Haul Truck Engine Emissions and Road Dust......................6 

 2.5 On-Site Material Processing Plant Dust .............................................6 

 2.6 Concrete Batch Plant Dust..................................................................7 

3.0 Emission Control Measures ...............................................................................8 

4.0 Emission Inventories........................................................................................10 

5.0 Uncertainties ....................................................................................................11 

6.0 Results and Conclusions ..................................................................................11 

Tables 

Page 

1 General Conformity de minimis Thresholds......................................................2 

2 Construction Equipment Counts by Year ..........................................................4 

3 Unpaved Road Re-entrained Dust PM10 Emission Factors ...............................5 

4 Paved Road Re-entrained Dust PM10 Emission Factors....................................6 

5 Materials Processing Emission Factors .............................................................7 

6 Emission Control Measures ...............................................................................8 

7 Project Construction Emission Inventories......................................................11 
Attachments 

A The Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project 

B Emissions Factors for Off-Road Diesel Equipment Types 

C Equipment Count by Construction Activity 

D On-Road Emission Factors for Haul/Dump Trucks on Auxiliary Spillway and 

MIAD Overlay 

E Diesel Truck Emission Factors by EMFAC2002 (Annual Average)

F Construction Equipment Emissions

G Off-Road Equipment Emission Inventories 

H Off-Road Equipment Emission Factors 
 1

 

General Conformity Applicability Analysis for 

the Clean Air Act 

1.0 General Conformity Applicability Analysis 

1.1 General Conformity Background 

Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c)) requires any entity of the federal 

government that engages in, supports, or in any way provides financial support for, licenses or 

permits, or approves any activity to demonstrate that the action conforms to the applicable 

State Implementation Plan (SIP)1

 required under Section 110 (a) of the Federal Clean Air Act 

(42 U.S.C. 7410(a)) before the action is otherwise approved. In this context, conformity 

means that such federal actions must be consistent with a SIP's purpose of eliminating or 

reducing the severity and number of violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and achieving expeditious attainment of those standards. Each federal agency must 

determine that any action that is proposed by the agency and that is subject to the regulations 

implementing the conformity requirements will, in fact, conform to the applicable SIP before 

the action is taken. The Folsom DS/FDR Project actions are subject to the General Conformity 

Rule since the actions are sponsored and supported by multiple federal agencies. 

On November 30, 1993, USEPA promulgated final general conformity regulations at 40 CFR 

93 Subpart B for all federal activities except those covered under transportation conformity. 

The general conformity regulations apply to a proposed federal action in a non-attainment or 

maintenance area if the total of direct and indirect emissions of the relevant criteria pollutants 

and precursor pollutants caused by the proposed action equal or exceed certain de minimis 

amounts, thus requiring the federal agency to make a determination of general conformity. 

The general conformity regulations incorporate a stepwise process, beginning with an 

applicability analysis. According to USEPA guidance (USEPA 1994), before any approval is 

given for a proposed action to go forward, the regulating federal agency must apply the 

applicability requirements found at 40 CFR 93.153(b) to the proposed action and/or determine 

the regional significance of the proposed action to evaluate whether, on a pollutant-bypollutant basis, a determination of general conformity is required. The guidance states that the 

applicability analysis can be (but is not required to be) completed concurrently with any 

analysis required under NEPA. If the regulating federal agency determines that the general 

conformity regulations do not apply to the proposed action (meaning the proposed action 

emissions do not exceed the de minimis thresholds and are not regionally significant2

), no 

further analysis or documentation is required. 

1

 The SIP is the State’s plan to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for nonattainment pollutants. 

2

 Regardless of the proposed action's emissions relative to the de minimis amounts, if the action’s total emissions 

of a given pollutant represents 10 percent or more of the area's total emissions of that pollutant, the action is

considered regionally significant and the federal agency must make a determination of general conformity.
General Conformity Applicability Analysis 

for the Clean Air Act 

The de minimis amounts for the region covering Folsom Dam are presented in Table 1. 

Table 1 

General Conformity de minimis Thresholds 

Pollutant Federal Status De minimis (TPY) 

VOC (as an Ozone Precursor) Nonattainment, serious 8-hour Ozone 50 

NOx (as an Ozone Precursor) Nonattainment, serious 8-hour Ozone 50 

PM10 Nonattainment, moderate 100 

CO Attainment, Maintenance 100 

TPY = tons per year 

Sources: SMAQMD 2006a; 40 CFR 93.153.

This memorandum provides the applicability analysis for the Folsom DS/FDR actions selected 

alternative, including calculation methodology and results. This applicability analysis includes 

emission reduction measures that will be incorporated into the project design and 

specifications. A general description of the preferred alternative that the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

propose to implement is provided in Attachment A. 

2.0 Emission Calculation Methodology 

In general, the construction emissions were estimated from various emission models and 

spreadsheet calculations, depending on the source type and data availability. The CARB Urban 

Emissions Model (URBEMIS) - Version 8.7 and EMFAC2002 (on-road vehicle emission 

factor model) were used along with emission factors obtained from USEPA AP-42. URBEMIS 

was developed to estimate emissions from a variety of projects such as residential, commercial 

and industrial developments. However, URBEMIS does not include specific features 

associated with dam construction and much of the emission calculation relied on other 

methods to estimate construction emissions. Annual emissions for each year of construction 

were estimated from appropriate emission factors, number of facilities and features being 

worked and the associated schedules. The following construction sources and activities were 

analyzed for emissions: 

• On-site grading (cut/fill) fugitive dust – based on URBEMIS modeling. 

• On-site construction equipment and haul truck engine emissions (all pollutants) – based on 

estimated equipment schedules, and CARB OFFROAD 2007 for construction equipment 

or EMFAC2002 for haul truck emission factors. 

• Off-site haul truck engine emissions (all pollutants) – based on EMFAC2002 and estimated 

vehicle miles traveled. 

• On-site and off-site haul truck fugitive dust emissions for paved and unpaved road travel – 

based on AP-42 and estimated vehicle miles traveled. 

• On-site material processing plants (assumed to be primarily crushing and sorting 

operations) – based on AP-42 and number of facilities operating simultaneously. 

2 
General Conformity Applicability Analysis 

for the Clean Air Act 

3 

• On-site concrete batch plants – based on AP-42 and number of facilities operating 

simultaneously. 

• On-site blasting emissions – based on methodology provided in the Blue Rock Quarry 

Draft Environmental Impact Report (Sonoma County 2005) and approximate size of area 

subject to blasting activity. 

• Off-site worker vehicle trips to and from the site, including paved road dust – based on 

EMFAC2002 (engine emission factors), Midwest Research Institute (MRI 1996, paved 

road dust emission factors), and estimated vehicle miles traveled. 

The following sections provide additional discussion of operating durations and emission 

estimation methodologies used for each activity and source group. 

2.1 Operating Durations 

Most of the activities associated with the project will be conducted over a standard 5-day per 

week, 12-hour per day schedule. Those activities are assumed to occur for 22 days per month. 

Several specific tasks are assumed to be conducted over a 6-day per week, 12-hour per day 

schedule. These activities include the Auxiliary Spillway Phases 1, 2, and 3, MIAD Jet 

Grouting, and MIAD Overlay. These activities are assumed to occur for 26 days per month. 

2.2 On-Site Grading and Asphalt Paving 

The URBEMIS model was developed to estimate construction emissions from land 

development projects. It treats construction in three phases: Phase 1 – demolition, Phase 2 – 

site grading, and Phase 3 – building construction. For this proposed action, URBEMIS was 

used for fugitive PM emissions from grading (earth cut/fill) activities as well as paving 

equipment engine emissions and asphalt paving evaporative VOC emissions. The earth cut/fill 

activity is included in URBEMIS Phase 2–Site Grading, which allows the user to select one of 

four tiers of detail to calculate fugitive dust emissions. Movement of dam shell material was 

treated as grading. The volume of shell material for each feature and alternative were estimated 

in cubic yards per day; therefore, the Low Level tier was selected in URBEMIS for fugitive 

PM10 emission estimations. For each activity that included paving, approximately 10 acres of 

paved area was assumed. 

2.3 On-site Construction Equipment Emissions 

On-site construction equipment will include both off-road equipment (i.e., those mobile 

equipment not licensed to travel on public roads) and on-road trucks (i.e., mobile vehicles 

licensed to travel on public roads). Since the emission standards and fleet turnover is different 

for on-road and off-road equipment, two models are used to estimate emissions for the on-site 

equipment. 

The CARB OFFROAD 2007 model was used to determine the emission factors used for all 

off-road construction equipment, such as dozers, loaders, graders, and scrapers. The estimated 

equipment counts for each year are presented in Table 2. The emission factors for each offroad equipment type are included in Attachment B to this memorandum. The emission factors 
General 

for the Cle4 

Table 2 

Construction Equipment Counts by Year(1)

Equipment Description 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20Water Truck 3 4 6 7 6 6 5 5 3 3 6 Pick-up Trucks 14 20 32 32 30 30 30 32 11 11 24 1Excavator 330 BL/220hp 1 1 3 6 5 5 4 6 3 3 5 Excavator 365BL II/404 HP 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Loader 938 G/160 hp 1 2 3 8 8 8 6 10 4 4 6 Loader 966 GII/246 hp 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Scraper 631E/450 hp 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Compactor 433/96 hp 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 Compactor 434C/70 hp 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 Dump Truck 285 hp D300 10 11 19 14 9 8 8 7 0 0 4 Dump Truck 405 hp D400 8 8 8 12 12 12 12 12 0 0 0 Dozer D4/80 hp 0 1 2 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 3 Dozer D6/185 hp 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 Dozer D8R/307 hp 1 2 3 2 5 2 2 2 1 1 3 Grader 14H/215 hp 1 1 2 5 5 4 4 3 1 1 3 Haul Truck Tractor Trailer 10 10 26 19 13 13 13 13 8 8 30 2Rear Dump Truck 405 hp D400 8 8 14 9 12 12 12 12 11 11 22 1Drill Rig - Ingersol Rand CM 375/215 hp 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 Drill Rig - Atlantic LDH80T/177 hp 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pump - 200 gpm/8 hp gas 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 Concrete pump - 65 yph/110 hp 0 1 1 4 5 4 4 4 1 1 1 Concrete portable mixer - electric 0 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 1 1 1 Air compressor - 1550 cfm, 150 

psi/525 hp 1 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 

Generator – 200 kw/270 hp 0 1 2 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 Generator – 500 kw/700 hp 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 Crane 0 0 0 3 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 

(1) Values are the sum of all equipment on-site for all activities that occur during a given year. The number of pieces on-site at any given time may 

values if activities only occur for part of a year. 

Conformity Applicability Analysis 

an Air Act 
General Conformity Applicability Analysis 

for the Clean Air Act 

were developed by running OFFROAD 2007 to generate construction equipment 

emissions for Sacramento County for each year of the proposed action (2007 – 

2020). The output included daily emissions (tons per day) for each equipment type 

(e.g., scrapers) and size (e.g., 175 hp) for all equipment in the county. The results for 

each year were divided by the county-wide counts for each year and multiplied by 

2000 (lbs/ton) to obtain equipment specific daily emissions in lbs/day. The daily 

emission rates in Attachment B are based on one 8-hour work shift per day. The 

number of pieces of each equipment type for each activity is included in Attachment 

C. 

The CARB EMFAC2002 model was used to determine haul/dump truck and water 

truck emissions for the proposed action. The analysis assumed that only on-road 

trucks, which are subject to more stringent engine emissions controls and are 

therefore cleaner than their off-road equivalents, will be used for hauling/dumping 

material and for watering on-site roads and active areas. In addition, the haul/dump 

trucks used specifically for the auxiliary spillway phases and the MIAD overlay 

activity of this project are assumed to be new 2007 trucks that meet the 0.2 g/(bhphr) NOx emission standard for 2007 and later on-road heavy duty diesel engines. 

This control measure will be a requirement in the project specifications included in 

contractor bid packages for auxiliary spillway and MIAD overlay activities. The 

emission factors applied to all water trucks and any haul/dump trucks not used on the 

auxiliary spillway or MIAD overlay activities are included in Attachment B under 

“On-Road Trucks”. The emission factors used for haul/dump trucks used on the 

auxiliary spillway and MIAD overlay activities are included in Attachment D. 

Re-entrained road dust from haul truck travel was estimated for unpaved roads. 

Unpaved road dust was estimated using emission factors from AP-42 (USEPA 

2006). Table 3 presents the unpaved road emission factors, including the effect of 

watering roadways three (3) times per day. The Folsom DS/FDR Project actions 

emission factor for unpaved road dust was averaged from the values calculated using 

the lowest and highest silt contents, which is slightly greater than the one calculated 

from the mean silt content. The round trip distance was estimated to be 2 miles based 

on travel from the auxiliary spillway to the D1/D2 staging areas and back. 

Table 3 

Unpaved Road Re-entrained Dust PM10 Emission Factors (lb/VMT) 

Silt (%) PM10 PM2.5

Lowest 0.56 0.05 0.005 

Worst 23 1.54 0.15 

Mean 8.5 0.63 0.06 

Folsom 10 0.73 0.07 

Sources: USEPA 2006

5 
General Conformity Applicability Analysis 

for the Clean Air Act 

The construction scheduling estimate for the Folsom DS/FDR Project assumes that 

one 8-hour shift is sufficient for most activities. However, the auxiliary spillway 

phases, and MIAD jet grouting is assumed to occur from sunrise to sunset, which 

averaged over a year is assumed to be approximately 12 hours per day. The analysis 

estimates emissions for all activities by multiplying the daily emission factors 

developed for one 8-hour shift per day (included in Attachment B) by a factor of 1.5. 

2.4 Off-Site Haul Truck Engine Emissions and Road Dust 

The haul truck engine emissions were calculated based on EMFAC2002 emission 

factors for heavy duty diesel trucks in Sacramento County and estimates of total 

vehicle miles traveled per day. The emission factors used in this analysis are 

presented in Attachment E. The average speed for off-site hauling was assumed to 

be 30 mph. 

Re-entrained road dust from haul truck travel was estimated for paved roads. Paved 

road dust was estimated using emission factors developed by the Midwest Research 

Institute (MRI 1996). Table 4 presents the paved road emission factors. Average 

road conditions and average daily trips were used for paved road emission factors. 

Table 4 

Paved Road Re-entrained Dust PM10 Emission Factors (g/VMT) 

Average Daily Trips (ADT) 

Road Condition High Low Average 

Average conditions 0.37 1.3 0.81 

Worst-case conditions 0.64 3.9 2.1 

Source: Midwest Research Institute 1996.

The offsite haul trucks were divided into two groups based on hauling materials and 

site locations. The long distance group was defined as hauling raw material from 

Marysville and Woodland, for which the roundtrip distances were estimated to 106 

miles and 90 miles, respectively. The local group included trucks hauling materials 

from local sites to the dam area, which assumed that all roundtrips were 

approximately 50 miles. Both exhaust emissions and re-entrained dust from paved 

roads were calculated for the two groups of hauling trucks above. 

2.5 On-Site Material Processing Plant Dust 

On-site materials processing was assumed to be crushing and sorting. Emissions 

were estimated using the AP-42 emission factors summarized in Table 5, with an 

estimated materials processing facility achieving a maximum production rate of 

5,000 tons per day. The emissions were calculated as the total of each process 

emission assuming the total material handled was subjected to all steps listed in 

Table 5. 

6 
General Conformity Applicability Analysis 

for the Clean Air Act 

Table 5 

Materials Processing Emission Factors (lbs per ton of material) 

Source 

Total 

PM10

Total 

PM2.5

 Tertiary Crushing 0.0024 ND 

 Tertiary Crushing (controlled) 0.00054 0.00010 

 Fines Crushing 0.0150 ND 

 Fines Crushing (controlled) 0.0012 0.000070 

 Screening 0.0087 ND 

 Screening (controlled) 0.00074 0.000050 

 Fines Screening 0.072 ND 

 Fines Screening (controlled) 0.0022 ND 

 Conveyor Transfer Point 0.00110 ND 

 Conveyor Transfer Point (controlled) 4.6 x 10-5 1.3 x 10-5

 Wet Drilling – Unfragmented Stone 8.0 x 10-5 ND 

 Truck Unloading -Fragmented Stone 1.6 x 10-5 ND 

 Truck Unloading – Conveyor, crushed 0.00010 ND 

ND = No Data

Source: USEPA 2006.

In developing the emission inventories for materials processing, it was assumed that 

prime power would be obtained from the electric utility grid, and that diesel engines 

would not be used for prime movers/generators. It was also assumed that wet 

suppression of plant dust would be required as a condition of obtaining an air quality 

permit; therefore, the Folsom DS/FDR Project design would include emission 

controls in the materials processing plants. 

2.6 Concrete Batch Plant Dust 

Concrete batching emissions were estimated using AP-42 emission factors and 

summarized in Table 6 (USEPA 2006). The maximum daily production rate was 

estimated to be 300 cubic yards. Since the emission factor is in pounds per ton of 

concrete produced, the production rate in cubic yards per day was converted to tons 

per day with a concrete density of 4,946 lbs/cubic yard, resulting in 742 tons per day 

concrete production. The composition ratio of the aggregate, sand, and cement 

materials in the concrete was estimated to be 6:3:1. Only truck mixing of concrete is 

assumed for this project. 

As with materials processing, it was assumed that prime power in the concrete batch 

plants would be obtained from the electric utility grid, and that diesel engines would 

not be used for prime movers/generators. It was also assumed that wet suppression 

of plant dust would be required as a condition of obtaining an air quality permit; 

therefore, the Folsom DS/FDR Project design would include emission controls in the 

concrete batch plants. 

7 
General Conformity Applicability Analysis 

for the Clean Air Act 

Table 6 

Concrete Batch Plant PM10 Emission Factors (lbs ton of concrete) 

Batch Plant Source Uncontrolled Controlled 

Aggregate transfer 0.0033 ND 

Sand transfer 0.00099 ND 

Cement unloading to elevated storage silo 

(pneumatic) 0.46 0.00034 

Cement supplement unloading to elevated 

storage silo 1.10 0.0049 

Weigh hopper loading 0.0024 ND 

Mixer loading (central mix) 0.156 0.0055 

Truck loading (truck mix) 0.311 0.0263 

ND = No Data

Source: USEPA 2006.

3.0 Emission Control Measures 

The unmitigated NOx, PM10, and CO emissions identified in the Draft EIS/EIR for 

the project exceed the General Conformity de minimis thresholds for each year of the 

Folsom DS/FDR actions construction. For the air quality impact analysis included in 

the Draft EIS/EIR, a number of conservative assumptions were made, including: 

• Compressing all activities into a seven-year schedule with substantial 

overlapping of activities throughout the project site 

• Simultaneous operations at multiple barrow sites, materials handling/screening 

facilities, and concrete batch plants. 

• Assuming on-site haul distances that were greater than would typically be 

encountered on the project 

• Double hauling of most of the material generated on site: soils/material were 

assumed to be excavated and hauled to a staging area, then later moved to its 

final placement location 

• Slightly dated emission factors for offroad equipment were used which were 

higher than currently projected emission factors. 

The project components, phasing, and overall schedule have been revised since 

publication of the Draft EIS/EIR for various purposes, including the reduction of 

environmental impacts. The revised project description is summarized in Attachment 

A, and is presented in detail in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS/EIR. The emission control 

measures, described below, will be incorporated into project designs and 

8 
General Conformity Applicability Analysis 

for the Clean Air Act 

specifications to reduce emissions. The control measures that are now part of the 

project design/specification include: 

• Only new 2007 on-road haul trucks will be used for hauling over 3 million cubic 

yards of material from the auxiliary spillway to the D1/D2 staging areas. The 

engines in these trucks will meet the 2007 NOx emission standard of 0.2 grams 

per horsepower-hour. 

• Only on-road dump trucks and water trucks will be used for other on-site 

material hauling and road watering to reduce NOx emissions. These trucks are 

assumed to have fleet average NOx emissions for heavy duty diesel vehicles 

from the EMFAC2002 model. 

• Facility power for the concrete batch plants and rock/material screening facilities 

will come from the electric utility grid, not diesel-driven generators and pumps. 

Using grid power eliminates both the gaseous pollutants associated with diesel 

engines, as well as diesel particulate matter, which is a listed toxic air 

contaminant in California. 

• Wet suppression will be used at the concrete batch plants and rock/material 

screening facilities to reduce plant dust emissions. For this analysis, the 

controlled emissions are based on AP-42 controlled emission factors for batch 

plants and crushing facilities. 

• Wet suppression and soil stabilization will be used on the on-site haul roads and 

inactive construction areas to minimize fugitive dust emissions. 

• The Project Agencies will submit to the SMAQMD a comprehensive inventory 

of all off-road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, 

that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the 

construction project. The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine 

production year, engine family number, and projected hours of use or fuel 

throughput for each piece of equipment. The inventory shall be updated and 

submitted monthly throughout the duration of the project, except that an 

inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction 

activity occurs. At least 48 hours prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off-road 

equipment, the project representative shall provide SMAQMD with the 

anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone 

number of the project manager and on-site foreman. 

9 
General Conformity Applicability Analysis 

for the Clean Air Act 

Additional or replacement measures that the Folsom DS/FDR Project may 

incorporate, as appropriate for the area and equipment operating on a given feature, 

include: 

• Truck wheel washing facilities at site exits onto public roadways will be used to 

minimize dirt trackout onto public roadways. 

• Maintaining minimum truck bed freeboard or covering haul truck beds to limit 

hauling fugitive dust emissions. 

• Paving on-site roadways to minimize fugitive dust emissions. 

• Install electric-driven conveyors on portions of the material haul routes to reduce 

on-site haul truck engine emissions and road dust. Determining the feasibility of 

conveyors will need to account for elevation changes along and around the dam. 

If installed, power for the conveyor system will need to come from the electric 

utility grid, not diesel generators. In addition, material moisture content will be 

maintained (e.g., wet suppression) to minimize fugitive dust from soil/material 

being transported by conveyor. 

• Potentially require all off-road equipment engines to meet Tier 3 standards. 

• ARB-Verified control devices for offroad diesel engine NOx emissions may be 

installed on units where the device can be located on the equipment in a safe 

manner (i.e., the operating can operate the equipment safely and without visual 

obstructions), and the emission reduction associated with installing the device is 

cost effective. 

4.0 Emission Inventories 

The estimated controlled emission inventories are presented in Table 7. These 

inventories assumed that the control measures identified above have been 

implemented through project design requirements and specifications. A breakdown 

of construction emissions by general activity is included in Attachment F. The 

offroad construction equipment annual emissions by equipment type are presented in 

Attachment G, and the corresponding offroad engine NOx emissions factors, in 

grams per horsepower-hour are presented in Attachment H. 

10 
General Conformity Applicability Analysis 

for the Clean Air Act 

Table 7 

Project Construction Emission Inventories (TPY) 

Year NOx CO PM10

2007 9.64 10.42 38.68 

2008 46.92 43.27 55.00 

2009 38.05 23.57 55.81 

2010 40.55 40.14 57.31 

2011 42.21 43.60 58.02 

2012 45.87 43.76 76.17 

2013 39.49 40.94 74.37 

2014 35.63 36.14 75.00 

2015 11.44 5.09 15.41 

2016 16.36 8.07 18.96 

2017 13.32 8.45 10.98 

2018 6.95 5.47 7.35 

2019 0.76 0.55 5.78 

2020 0.43 0.34 5.76 

De minimis threshold 50 100 100 

Exceed de minimis? No No No 

Source: CDM 2007. 

5.0 Uncertainties 

The emission calculations conducted for this General Conformity applicability 

analysis are based on various factors and assumptions which have implicit or explicit 

uncertainty. Recent models and data are used to provide relatively accurate emission 

inventories for comparison to General Conformity de minimis thresholds. In 

addition, at least one assumption was made in developing the inventories which 

provide some level of conservatism in the results. On-site haul truck emissions for 

Auxiliary Spillway phases and MIAD overlay activity were based on each and every 

truck operating for 12 hours per day. This assumption does not account for down 

time due to mandatory breaks and lunch. The emissions for these trucks are 

overestimated by approximately 20 percent. 

6.0 Results and Conclusions 

With the implementation of the air quality control measures identified in the project 

design, the emissions of NOx, PM10, and CO will be below the de minimis threshold 

for General Conformity. Since the Draft EIS/EIR indicated that VOC emissions were 

already below the de minimis thresholds, and since the measures incorporated into 

11 
General Conformity Applicability Analysis 

for the Clean Air Act 

the project will not increase VOC emissions, no additional analysis of VOC was 

conducted for this applicability analysis. Emissions of all nonattainment or 

maintenance pollutants from the project are below the de minimis thresholds, and the 

project is presumed to conform with the approved SIP. 

12 
Attachment A
The Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction Project 

1.1 Introduction 

On December 1, 2006, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and the Corps non-federal 

sponsors, the State Reclamation Board (Reclamation Board)/California Department of 

Water Resources (DWR) and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), 

released the Folsom Dam Safety and Flood Damage Reduction (Folsom DS/FDR) Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for public 

review and comment. The Folsom DS/FDR Final EIS/EIR will be released to the public 

on March 30, 2007. The EIS/EIR addresses four separate projects to be implemented and 

constructed jointly and separately by Reclamation and the Corps. These include: 

1. A new Auxiliary Spillway would be controlled by 6 submerged tainter gates 

(6STG). The Auxiliary Spillway, also referred to as the JFP, would be 

implemented jointly by Reclamation and the Corps to address hydrologic Dam 

Safety and Flood Damage Reduction concerns related to controlled release of 

water from Folsom Dam. Reclamation has also evaluated a Fuseplug Spillway 

alternative as a stand-alone dam safety alternative to be implemented only if 

the Corps is unable to receive timely construction funding or realize timely 

hydrologic risk reduction by construction of the 6STG spillway. Reclamation 

and the Corps will jointly identify the final environmental mitigation and 

commitments for the new Auxiliary Spillway project element, inclusive of the 

Fuseplug option, under a joint JFP ROD. 

2. Additional Dam Safety modifications will be undertaken by Reclamation to 

address seismic and static concerns related to the Main Concrete Dam and six 

of the eleven earthen structures. Seismic modifications would be made to 

MIAD by undertaking foundation jet grouting in conjunction with a 

downstream overlay and the reinforcement of Main Concrete Dam existing 

gates and piers. Static modifications would be undertaken to the RWD, LWD, 

Dikes 4, 5, and 6, and MIAD. Reclamation will independently identify the 

final environmental mitigations and commitments for this effort under a standalone ROD. 

3. Security improvements will be undertaken by Reclamation to key Folsom 

facilities to address national security concerns. Reclamation will 

independently identify the final environmental mitigations and commitments 

for this effort under the dam safety ROD. 

4. Flood Damage Reduction improvements in addition to the 6STG will be 

undertaken by the Corps including modification or replacement of existing 

emergency spillway gates and a 3.5-ft raise to all Folsom embankment 

facilities. The Corps will prepare a separate ROD for the 3.5-ft raise, 

emergency gate modifications or replacement, and other flood damage 

reduction features. Detailed design for these flood damage reduction features 

ATTACHMENT A

A-1
at the Folsom Facility would occur during the Corps’ pre-construction, 

engineering and design phase. The issuance of a ROD by the Corps for such 

improvements at the Folsom Facility is not expected to occur in conjunction 

with the currently proposed DS/FDR actions, but rather would occur later as a 

separate action with supplemental environmental documentation if necessary. 

Reclamation and the Corps have identified Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative. The 

Draft EIS/EIR originally described Alternative 3 and the Partner Agencies refined it 

based on public and agency comments received on the Draft EIS/EIR. The Preferred 

Alternative, as discussed in the Final EIS/EIR and the Corp’s Selected Plan presented in 

its Post Authorization Change (PAC) Report, incorporates elements of the four projects 

described above. A Joint ROD addressing only the JFP Auxiliary Spillway project 

(feature #1) of the Preferred Alternative will be completed by both the Reclamation and 

the Corps. Separate standalone RODs will be developed by Reclamation to address dam 

safety and security (features #2 and #3), and by the Corps to address flood damage 

reduction issues (feature #4). Table A-1 identifies the DS/FDR action, the responsible 

agency, and the issue addressed. 

Table A-1 

 Components of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3) 

Action Responsible Agency Concern Addressed 

JFP Auxiliary Spillway 

construction 

Reclamation and Corps Dam Safety, Flood Damage 

Reduction, hydrologic control 

MIAD foundation stabilization 

and overlay 

Reclamation Dam Safety, seismic upgrades 

Left and Right Wing Dams, 

Dikes 4, 5, 6 upgrades 

Reclamation Dam Safety, static upgrades 

Main Dam concrete block, pier, 

and gates reinforcement 

Reclamation Dam Safety, seismic upgrades 

Facility Security Improvements Reclamation National Security 

Existing Spillway Gates 

Replacement 

Corps Flood Damage Reduction 

Facility Raise Corps Flood Damage Reduction 

Project Description of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3) 

The following sections provide a description of the elements included in the Preferred 

Alternative (Alternative 3), as discussed in the Final EIS/EIR. 

Joint Federal Project - Auxiliary Spillway 

The JFP involves the construction of a new Auxiliary Spillway controlled by six 

submerged tainter gates (6STG) and including a concrete-lined chute, stilling basin, and 

approach channel. This new spillway would provide the operational capability for 

improved hydrologic control (controlled sustained discharge earlier and for longer 

ATTACHMENT A

A-2
durations and/or prevention of dam or embankment overtopping) of storm induced floods 

in excess of reservoir storage capacity in advance of and during a major storm. 

The new Auxiliary Spillway would be constructed jointly by Reclamation and the Corps 

in three separate phases. Reclamation would initiate excavation of the spillway chute and 

stilling basin and the Corps would complete excavation of the chute including the 

approach channel, and would construct the control structure and concrete lining of the 

chute, approach channel, and stilling basin. The Final EIS/EIR addressed the impacts of 

constructing the spillway in phases. 

The JFP Auxiliary Spillway would include the following actions and features: 

1. Excavation of up to 3.5 million cubic yards (cy) of soil and rock material to 

create the spillway chute, approach channel, and control structure. 

2. Lining of the spillway chute, approach channel, and stilling basin with 

concrete. 

3. Construction of a new stilling basin at the toe of the Auxiliary Spillway 

4. Construction of a haul road, entirely on federal property, for the transport and 

stockpiling/disposal of excavated material 

5. Stockpiling/disposal of excavated material at the toe of the LWD, Observation 

Point, Dike 7, right abutment of Mormon Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD right 

groin), and the D1/D2 location southwest of MIAD 

6. Staging of contractor materials and equipment at the spillway excavation site, 

Observation Point, and D1/D2 location. 

7. Construction of a recreational access bypass near the entry of Folsom Point to 

allow unrestricted access to Folsom Point by the public during peak use 

periods. 

The stockpiled material that is excavated from the spillway is intended for use in the 

construction of proposed dam safety improvements, including placement of a 

downstream overlay at MIAD and construction of contractor staging platforms. It is 

anticipated that it would take up to 7 years, starting in the Fall of 2007 and ending in 

2014, to complete all three phases of construction of the new JFP Auxiliary Spillway. 

Dam Safety Improvements 

To address seismic and static concerns for structures comprising the Folsom Facility, 

Reclamation would implement planned modifications for the Main Concrete Dam, the 

Right Wing Dam (RWD), the Left Wing Dam (LWD) , Dikes 4, 5, and 6, and Mormon 

Island Auxiliary Dam (MIAD). All of these modifications would be constructed 

independently by Reclamation. 

ATTACHMENT A

A-3
Main Concrete Dam. To address seismic concerns allowing the Main Concrete Dam to 

withstand a major earthquake, three types of improvements would be implemented. 

These include anchoring of the monoliths and installation of reinforcements to the 

existing spillway gates and piers. The concrete monoliths forming the main dam could 

potentially slip along the joints of adjacent blocks during an earthquake. Deformation of 

the gate piers and during earthquake loading could result in failure of several spillway 

gates. These failures could release significant quantities of water that could cause 

flooding and possible failure of the downstream levees. The three types of improvements 

proposed to enhance main dam safety include: 

a) Pier Tendon Installation – This project will anchor concrete monoliths that form 

piers to prevent movement of the blocks during a major earthquake. Tendons will 

be installed into the piers by drilling a borehole into the concrete blocks, inserting 

the tendon, and grouting the tendon in place. The tendon and hole will then be 

grouted to the surface. There are six tendons anticipated per pier block with 

seven piers identified for anchoring. 

b) Pier Wrap - This improvement to the main dam involves placement of a steel 

plate wrapped around the downstream portion of the pier and anchored with bolts 

on both sides that extend completely through the pier, upstream of the area of 

concern. The steel plate would carry the load placed on it if the pier tends to 

shear and displace during an earthquake. 

c) Spillway Gate Modifications - Spillway gates could be overstressed during large 

seismic events and could fail from buckling of the gate arms. Failure of several 

spillway gates could release significant quantities of water that could cause 

flooding and failure of the downstream levees. The proposed modifications will 

strengthen the gate arms through installation of metal plate bracing. This 

strengthening could be performed with the gate in place. During construction, a 

bulkhead would be installed upstream of the gate to eliminate loading on the gate 

and the reinforcement installed. 

LWD, RWD, Dikes 4, 5, and 6, MIAD Static Control. To address static (seepage) 

concerns for the LWD, RWD, Dikes 4, 5, and 6, and MIAD, Reclamation would install 

new seepage control filters within the downstream face of each earthen structure. The 

filter material would be comprised of processed sand and gravel material that would be 

delivered to each individual facility from offsite and/or processed on-site in a rock 

crushing plant. The processing plant would be located near the LWD and would use 

materials excavated from the Auxiliary Spillway as the feedstock. The construction 

improvements to the earthen facilities involve stripping a layer of shell material from the 

downstream face of the wing dams and dikes, placement of the filter material, and 

replacing the shell. Additional material needed to rebuild the shell would either be 

excavated from the Auxiliary Spillway site or from supplemental borrow sites. 

MIAD. To address seismic concerns for MIAD, two types of improvements would be 

implemented. 

ATTACHMENT A

A-4
a) Jet Grouting of MIAD Foundation. The first improvement to MIAD will 

involve stabilization of its foundation using a subsurface jet grout injection 

process. A cement-grout mixture would be formed on-site using raw cement 

material hauled to the project site that is mixed with water. The cement-water 

mixture would be injected into the subsurface using a drilling method. The 

grout mixture will solidify the historic river cobble/dredged stream bed 

materials beneath MIAD forming a stable foundation. 

b) MIAD Overlay. Following jet grouting, material excavated from the new 

Auxiliary Spillway site that was temporarily stockpiled at the D1/D2 area, 

along with processed sand and gravel material, will be placed as an overlay on 

the downstream face of MIAD. This overlay is intended to add additional 

stability to the downstream face of the earthen structure. 

Dam Security Improvements 

To improve security measures for this National Critical Infrastructure Facility, 

Reclamation would install security cameras at access points to the Main Concrete Dam, 

Dikes 4 through 7, and at MIAD. The cameras would be placed on 30-ft steel poles with 

electrical and cable connections buried. To improve the night visibility of the Main 

Concrete Dam and control gates, Reclamation would install lighting to focus on the 

critical aspects of this structure. To the extent practicable, lighting would be installed in 

a manner that meets security mission requirements and minimizes glare or reflection 

impacts to homes and other private property surrounding the reservoir. 

Auxiliary Spillway Fuseplug Control Structure 

In the Final EIS/EIR Reclamation and the Corps identified a six submerged tainter gate 

(6STG) structure as their preferred method of improving hydrologic control of releases 

from Folsom Reservoir. During the evaluation of control structures, Reclamation also 

evaluated construction of a fuse-gate control structure as an alternative means of 

hydrologic control during major storm events. The fuse-gate control structure would 

address Reclamation’s dam safety objectives but not the Corps flood damage reduction 

objectives. Reclamation would install the fuseplug control structure only if the Corps 

experienced delays in design and construction of the 6STG control structure. 

Folsom DS/FDR Schedule 

The approximate schedule for the Folsom DS/FDR Project can be seen in Attachment F 

of this memorandum. 

ATTACHMENT A

A-5
Attachment B
Attachment B

Emission Factors for Off-Road Diesel Equipment Types

Exhaust Emission Factors, lb/day

Equipment Type ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5

Bore/Drill Rigs

2006 2.87 21.44 21.72 1.24 1.14

2007 0.33 1.47 3.91 0.14 0.13

2008 0.30 1.47 3.47 0.13 0.12

2009 0.27 1.46 3.10 0.12 0.11

2010 0.25 1.45 2.78 0.11 0.11

2011 0.23 1.45 2.43 0.10 0.11

2012 0.21 1.45 2.15 0.08 0.11

2013 0.20 1.45 1.93 0.07 0.11

2014 0.19 1.45 1.68 0.06 0.11

2015 0.17 1.45 1.36 0.05 0.11

2016 0.16 1.45 1.09 0.04 0.11

2017 0.15 1.45 0.89 0.03 0.11

2018 0.13 1.45 0.72 0.02 0.11

2019 0.12 1.45 0.57 0.02 0.11

2020 0.12 1.45 0.46 0.01 0.11

Cranes

2006 1.44 7.54 6.94 0.38 0.35

2007 0.85 3.40 8.46 0.33 0.30

2008 0.81 3.12 8.00 0.31 0.29

2009 0.77 2.88 7.56 0.29 0.27

2010 0.73 2.67 7.14 0.28 0.25

2011 0.70 2.47 6.64 0.25 0.25

2012 0.66 2.29 6.18 0.23 0.25

2013 0.62 2.13 5.73 0.21 0.25

2014 0.59 1.99 5.23 0.19 0.25

2015 0.56 1.88 4.76 0.17 0.25

2016 0.53 1.78 4.32 0.16 0.25

2017 0.51 1.71 3.91 0.14 0.25

2018 0.48 1.64 3.52 0.13 0.25

2019 0.46 1.59 3.17 0.12 0.25

2020 0.44 1.54 2.84 0.10 0.25

Crawler Tractors

2006 -- -- -- -- --

2007 0.84 3.02 7.25 0.35 0.32

2008 0.80 2.83 6.87 0.33 0.31

2009 0.76 2.66 6.50 0.31 0.29

2010 0.72 2.50 6.15 0.30 0.27

2011 0.68 2.36 5.77 0.28 0.26

2012 0.65 2.23 5.40 0.26 0.24

2013 0.61 2.12 5.05 0.24 0.22

2014 0.58 2.03 4.67 0.22 0.20

2015 0.55 1.94 4.31 0.20 0.18

2016 0.52 1.87 3.96 0.18 0.17

2017 0.49 1.80 3.64 0.17 0.15

2018 0.46 1.75 3.34 0.15 0.14

2019 0.44 1.70 3.06 0.14 0.13

2020 0.41 1.66 2.81 0.12 0.11

Page B-1
Attachment B

Emission Factors for Off-Road Diesel Equipment Types

Exhaust Emission Factors, lb/day

Equipment Type ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5

Electric

2006 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2007 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2009 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2012 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2013 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2017 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2018 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2019 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Excavators

2006 1.84 7.89 7.76 0.41 0.37

2007 0.90 2.75 9.49 0.34 0.31

2008 0.85 2.57 8.83 0.31 0.29

2009 0.81 2.40 8.23 0.29 0.27

2010 0.77 2.26 7.67 0.28 0.25

2011 0.73 2.14 7.01 0.25 0.25

2012 0.70 2.04 6.40 0.22 0.25

2013 0.67 1.97 5.85 0.20 0.25

2014 0.63 1.91 5.19 0.18 0.25

2015 0.60 1.87 4.59 0.16 0.25

2016 0.57 1.84 4.04 0.14 0.25

2017 0.54 1.81 3.54 0.12 0.25

2018 0.51 1.78 3.09 0.11 0.25

2019 0.48 1.76 2.69 0.09 0.25

2020 0.45 1.75 2.34 0.08 0.25

Graders

2006 1.20 5.46 10.42 0.56 0.51

2007 0.63 1.75 6.47 0.24 0.22

2008 0.59 1.65 6.09 0.23 0.21

2009 0.56 1.56 5.72 0.21 0.19

2010 0.53 1.48 5.37 0.20 0.18

2011 0.50 1.41 4.97 0.18 0.18

2012 0.47 1.35 4.60 0.16 0.18

2013 0.45 1.29 4.25 0.15 0.18

2014 0.42 1.25 3.85 0.13 0.18

2015 0.40 1.21 3.47 0.12 0.18

2016 0.37 1.17 3.12 0.11 0.18

2017 0.35 1.15 2.81 0.10 0.18

2018 0.33 1.13 2.51 0.09 0.18

2019 0.31 1.11 2.25 0.08 0.18

2020 0.30 1.10 2.00 0.07 0.18

Page B-2
Attachment B

Emission Factors for Off-Road Diesel Equipment Types

Exhaust Emission Factors, lb/day

Equipment Type ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5

Off-Highway Tractors/Compactors

2006 2.08 11.55 10.44 0.57 0.53

2007 1.00 2.73 5.71 0.50 0.46

2008 0.96 2.70 5.47 0.48 0.44

2009 0.91 2.66 5.23 0.46 0.42

2010 0.87 2.62 5.00 0.44 0.41

2011 0.82 2.59 4.78 0.42 0.41

2012 0.78 2.56 4.56 0.40 0.41

2013 0.74 2.53 4.34 0.38 0.41

2014 0.70 2.51 4.13 0.36 0.41

2015 0.67 2.47 3.91 0.33 0.41

2016 0.63 2.45 3.70 0.31 0.41

2017 0.60 2.42 3.49 0.29 0.41

2018 0.57 2.40 3.30 0.27 0.41

2019 0.54 2.39 3.11 0.25 0.41

2020 0.51 2.37 2.94 0.24 0.41

Rubber Tired Loaders

2006 0.92 4.34 7.67 0.41 0.37

2007 0.54 1.75 4.97 0.22 0.21

2008 0.51 1.70 4.67 0.21 0.19

2009 0.48 1.65 4.39 0.20 0.18

2010 0.46 1.62 4.13 0.19 0.17

2011 0.43 1.58 3.84 0.18 0.17

2012 0.41 1.55 3.57 0.16 0.17

2013 0.38 1.53 3.32 0.15 0.17

2014 0.36 1.50 3.05 0.13 0.17

2015 0.34 1.49 2.76 0.12 0.17

2016 0.32 1.47 2.48 0.11 0.17

2017 0.30 1.46 2.23 0.10 0.17

2018 0.28 1.45 2.00 0.09 0.17

2019 0.26 1.44 1.78 0.08 0.17

2020 0.25 1.43 1.59 0.07 0.17

Scrapers

2006 3.64 18.42 17.45 0.93 0.85

2007 1.47 6.86 14.09 0.57 0.52

2008 1.40 6.29 13.37 0.54 0.50

2009 1.34 5.78 12.68 0.51 0.47

2010 1.28 5.32 12.02 0.49 0.45

2011 1.22 4.91 11.27 0.45 0.45

2012 1.17 4.55 10.56 0.42 0.45

2013 1.11 4.23 9.90 0.38 0.45

2014 1.06 3.96 9.14 0.35 0.45

2015 1.01 3.73 8.42 0.32 0.45

2016 0.95 3.52 7.75 0.30 0.45

2017 0.90 3.35 7.11 0.27 0.45

2018 0.86 3.19 6.52 0.25 0.45

2019 0.81 3.06 5.96 0.22 0.45

2020 0.77 2.94 5.45 0.20 0.45

Page B-3
Attachment B

Emission Factors for Off-Road Diesel Equipment Types

Exhaust Emission Factors, lb/day

Equipment Type ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5

On-Road Haul Trucks

2006 0.31 1.55 3.70 0.15 0.13

2007 0.31 1.55 3.70 0.15 0.13

2008 0.30 1.46 3.42 0.14 0.12

2009 0.28 1.37 3.16 0.13 0.11

2010 0.26 1.27 2.84 0.12 0.10

2011 0.24 1.18 2.53 0.11 0.09

2012 0.22 1.10 2.25 0.10 0.08

2013 0.20 1.02 1.99 0.09 0.08

2014 0.19 0.96 1.75 0.08 0.07

2015 0.17 0.90 1.54 0.08 0.06

2016 0.16 0.85 1.35 0.07 0.06

2017 0.15 0.80 1.18 0.07 0.05

2018 0.13 0.76 1.02 0.06 0.05

2019 0.13 0.73 0.89 0.06 0.05

2020 0.12 0.70 0.78 0.06 0.04

Pick-up Trucks

2006 0.07 0.38 0.36 0.04 0.03

2007 0.07 0.38 0.36 0.04 0.03

2008 0.07 0.37 0.36 0.04 0.03

2009 0.06 0.37 0.36 0.04 0.03

2010 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.03

2011 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.03

2012 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.03

2013 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.03 0.03

2014 0.06 0.35 0.36 0.03 0.03

2015 0.06 0.35 0.36 0.03 0.03

2016 0.05 0.34 0.36 0.03 0.03

2017 0.05 0.34 0.36 0.03 0.03

2018 0.05 0.34 0.36 0.03 0.03

2019 0.05 0.34 0.37 0.03 0.03

2020 0.05 0.33 0.37 0.03 0.02

Generator Sets (<500)

2006 -- -- -- -- --

2007 0.20 0.79 2.46 0.08 0.07

2008 0.19 0.73 2.35 0.07 0.07

2009 0.17 0.68 2.23 0.07 0.06

2010 0.16 0.63 2.12 0.06 0.06

2011 0.15 0.58 1.97 0.06 0.06

2012 0.14 0.54 1.83 0.05 0.06

2013 0.13 0.51 1.69 0.05 0.06

2014 0.12 0.49 1.53 0.04 0.06

2015 0.11 0.47 1.37 0.04 0.06

2016 0.10 0.46 1.26 0.04 0.06

2017 0.10 0.45 1.16 0.03 0.06

2018 0.10 0.44 1.07 0.03 0.06

2019 0.09 0.44 0.98 0.03 0.06

2020 0.09 0.43 0.89 0.03 0.06

Page B-4
Attachment B

Emission Factors for Off-Road Diesel Equipment Types

Exhaust Emission Factors, lb/day

Equipment Type ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5

Generator Sets (<750)

2006 -- -- -- -- --

2007 0.33 1.28 4.07 0.13 0.12

2008 0.31 1.18 3.89 0.12 0.11

2009 0.29 1.09 3.70 0.11 0.10

2010 0.27 1.01 3.51 0.11 0.10

2011 0.25 0.93 3.27 0.10 0.10

2012 0.23 0.87 3.04 0.09 0.10

2013 0.21 0.83 2.82 0.08 0.10

2014 0.20 0.79 2.55 0.07 0.10

2015 0.18 0.76 2.30 0.07 0.10

2016 0.17 0.74 2.12 0.06 0.10

2017 0.17 0.73 1.94 0.06 0.10

2018 0.16 0.71 1.77 0.05 0.10

2019 0.15 0.70 1.62 0.05 0.10

2020 0.14 0.70 1.47 0.04 0.10

Pumps

2006 -- -- -- -- --

2007 0.17 0.65 1.44 0.07 0.06

2008 0.16 0.64 1.38 0.07 0.06

2009 0.15 0.64 1.31 0.06 0.06

2010 0.14 0.64 1.25 0.06 0.06

2011 0.13 0.64 1.18 0.06 0.06

2012 0.13 0.64 1.11 0.06 0.06

2013 0.12 0.63 1.04 0.05 0.06

2014 0.11 0.63 0.97 0.05 0.06

2015 0.10 0.63 0.89 0.04 0.06

2016 0.09 0.63 0.82 0.04 0.06

2017 0.08 0.63 0.76 0.04 0.06

2018 0.08 0.63 0.70 0.03 0.06

2019 0.07 0.63 0.64 0.03 0.06

2020 0.07 0.64 0.59 0.03 0.06

Air Compressors

2006 -- -- -- -- --

2007 0.39 1.51 4.35 0.15 0.14

2008 0.37 1.38 4.15 0.14 0.13

2009 0.35 1.26 3.96 0.14 0.12

2010 0.33 1.15 3.76 0.13 0.12

2011 0.31 1.05 3.50 0.12 0.12

2012 0.29 0.98 3.24 0.11 0.12

2013 0.28 0.92 3.00 0.10 0.12

2014 0.26 0.88 2.71 0.09 0.12

2015 0.25 0.84 2.43 0.08 0.12

2016 0.24 0.82 2.24 0.07 0.12

2017 0.24 0.80 2.06 0.07 0.12

2018 0.23 0.79 1.90 0.06 0.12

2019 0.23 0.78 1.73 0.06 0.12

2020 0.22 0.77 1.57 0.05 0.12

Page B-5
Attachment C
Attachment C

Equipment Count by Construction ActivityDescription Equipment Type

Auxiliary Spillway 

Construction Phase 1

RWD Static 

Mods

LWD 

Mo

Work Package Identifier Recl. 1 Recl 2 Rec

Duration:(month) 18 15 15 

Shifts 2 1 1 

Work Week 6 5 5 

Construction Personnel 34 30 20 

Supervisory Personnel 9 6 6 

Water Truck Off-Highway Trucks/Water Trucks 2 1 1 Pick-up Trucks* On-Road Haul Trucks 10 4 4 Excavator 330 BL/220hp Excavators 1 1 Excavator 365BL II/404 HP Excavators 2 0 0 Loader 938 G/160 hp Rubber Tired Loaders 1 0 0 Loader 966 GII/246 hp Rubber Tired Loaders 1 1 1 Scraper 631E/450 hp Scrapers 0 0 Compactor 433/96 hp Off-Highway Tractors/Compactors 1 1 1 Compactor 434C/70 hp Off-Highway Tractors/CompactorsDump Truck 285 hp D300* On-Road Haul Trucks 5 5 5 Dump Truck 405 hp D400* On-Road Haul Trucks 8Dozer D4/80 hp Crawler Tractor 0 0 Dozer D6/185 hp Crawler Tractor 1 1 Dozer D8R/307 hp Crawler Tractor 1 0 0 Grader 14H/215 hp Graders 1 0 0 Haul Truck Tractor Trailer* On-Road Haul Trucks 5 6 5 Rear Dump Truck 405 hp D400* On-Road Haul Trucks 8 0 0 Drill Rig - Ingersol Rand CM 375/215 Bore/Drill Rigs 1Drill Rig - Atlantic LDH80T/177 hp Bore/Drill Rigs Pump - 200 gpm Pumps Concrete pump - 65 yph/110 hp Pumps Concrete portable mixer - electric Electric Air compressor - 1550 cfm, 150 psi/525 hp Compressor 1 Generator - 200 kw/270 hp Generator (<500) Generator - 500 kw/700 hp Generator (<750)Crane Cranes

Total Total equipment count --> 47 20 19 

*On-road equivalent engine emissions.
Attachment C

Equipment Count by Construction ActivityDescriptionWork Package Identifier

Duration:(month)

Shifts

Work Week

Construction Personnel

Supervisory Personnel

Water TruckPick-up Trucks*Excavator 330 BL/220hpExcavator 365BL II/404 HPLoader 938 G/160 hpLoader 966 GII/246 hpScraper 631E/450 hpCompactor 433/96 hpCompactor 434C/70 hpDump Truck 285 hp D300*Dump Truck 405 hp D400*Dozer D4/80 hpDozer D6/185 hpDozer D8R/307 hpGrader 14H/215 hpHaul Truck Tractor Trailer*Rear Dump Truck 405 hp D400*Drill Rig - Ingersol Rand CM 375/215Drill Rig - Atlantic LDH80T/177 hpPump - 200 gpmConcrete pump - 65 yph/110 hpConcrete portable mixer - electricAir compressor - 1550 cfm, 150 psi/525 hpGenerator - 200 kw/270 hpGenerator - 500 kw/700 hpCrane

Total

*On-road equivalent engine emissions.

Dike 5 Static 

Mods

Auxiliary Spillway 

Construction Phase 2

MIAD 

Overlay

Dike 4 Static 

Mods

Dike 6 Static 

Mods

A

Co

Recl 5 Recl. 4 Recl 6 Recl 7 Recl 7 

8 40 22 7 7 1 2 11 1 5 6 65 5 

20 49 32 20 20 

7 12 10 7 7 1 2 32 1 8 20 9 5 8 1 1 11 1 0 11 1 1 01 1 0 11 1 00 11 1 11 1 

1 01

3 3 01 3 

12

1 11 10 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 

10 3 8 12 10 

6 3 11 1 10 

1 

11 1

1 1 1 

1 1

1 

37 58 39 29 41 
Attachment C

Equipment Count by Construction ActivityDescriptionWork Package Identifier

Duration:(month)

Shifts

Work Week

Construction Personnel

Supervisory Personnel

Water TruckPick-up Trucks*Excavator 330 BL/220hpExcavator 365BL II/404 HPLoader 938 G/160 hpLoader 966 GII/246 hpScraper 631E/450 hpCompactor 433/96 hpCompactor 434C/70 hpDump Truck 285 hp D300*Dump Truck 405 hp D400*Dozer D4/80 hpDozer D6/185 hpDozer D8R/307 hpGrader 14H/215 hpHaul Truck Tractor Trailer*Rear Dump Truck 405 hp D400*Drill Rig - Ingersol Rand CM 375/215Drill Rig - Atlantic LDH80T/177 hpPump - 200 gpmConcrete pump - 65 yph/110 hpConcrete portable mixer - electricAir compressor - 1550 cfm, 150 psi/525 hpGenerator - 200 kw/270 hpGenerator - 500 kw/700 hpCrane

Total

*On-road equivalent engine emissions.

Main Dam 

Construction Dike 1 Dike 2 Dike 3 Dike 4 Raise Dike 5 Rais

Recl 8-10 Corps 2 Corps 2 Corps 2 Corps 2 Corps 2 

14 1 1 1 1 2 

111111555555

10 5 5 5 5 5 

4222220111112211111422222

1111111111

11

11111

111111111111111111111111111

15 11 11 11 12 12 
Attachment C

Equipment Count by Construction ActivityDescriptionWork Package Identifier

Duration:(month)

Shifts

Work Week

Construction Personnel

Supervisory Personnel

Water TruckPick-up Trucks*Excavator 330 BL/220hpExcavator 365BL II/404 HPLoader 938 G/160 hpLoader 966 GII/246 hpScraper 631E/450 hpCompactor 433/96 hpCompactor 434C/70 hpDump Truck 285 hp D300*Dump Truck 405 hp D400*Dozer D4/80 hpDozer D6/185 hpDozer D8R/307 hpGrader 14H/215 hpHaul Truck Tractor Trailer*Rear Dump Truck 405 hp D400*Drill Rig - Ingersol Rand CM 375/215Drill Rig - Atlantic LDH80T/177 hpPump - 200 gpmConcrete pump - 65 yph/110 hpConcrete portable mixer - electricAir compressor - 1550 cfm, 150 psi/525 hpGenerator - 200 kw/270 hpGenerator - 500 kw/700 hpCrane

Total

*On-road equivalent engine emissions.

RWD Raise LWD Raise Dike 7 Dike 8 MIAD Raise TOTAL

Corps 2 Corps 2 Corps 2 Corps 2 Corps 2

42 1 1 411 1 1 155 5 5 555 5 5 522 2 2 22 1 1 1 2 28

86

2 1 1 1 2 23

5

4 2 2 2 4 37

6292

1 1 1 1 1 40

20

1 1 1 1 1 16

6

11

1 1 1 1 1 18

6948

416

1 1 1 1 1 151 1 1 1 1 18

6

1 1 1 1 1 15

2

1 1 1 1 1 13

15 11 11 11 15 506
Attachment D
Attachment D

On-Road Emission Factors for Haul/Dump Trucks on Auxiliary Spillway and MIAD Overlay

Auxiliary Spillway - Phase 1 Auxiliary Spillway - Phase 2

Source Parameters Source Parameters

Type On-Road Type On-RoadCapacity 20 Capacity 20Engine Year 2007 Engine Year 2007Horsepower 405 Horsepower 405Category 300<hp<600 Category 300<hp<600NOx EF 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx EF 0.2 g/bhp-hrSchedule 12 hr/day Schedule 12 hr/dayLoad Factor 0.57 Load Factor 0.57

Exhaust Emission Factors, lb/day Exhaust Emission Factors

Year ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 Year ROG CO NOx P

2006 -- -- -- -- -- 2006 -- -- -- 2007 1.79 5.91 1.22 0.66 0.61 2007 1.79 5.91 1.22 2008 1.79 5.91 1.22 0.66 0.61 2008 1.79 5.91 1.22 2009 1.79 5.91 1.22 0.66 0.61 2009 1.79 5.91 1.22 2010 1.79 5.91 1.22 0.66 0.61 2010 1.79 5.91 1.22 2011 1.79 5.91 1.22 0.66 0.61 2011 1.79 5.91 1.22 2012 1.79 5.91 1.22 0.66 0.61 2012 1.79 5.91 1.22 2013 1.79 5.91 1.22 0.66 0.61 2013 1.79 5.91 1.22 2014 1.79 5.91 1.22 0.66 0.61 2014 1.79 5.91 1.22 2015 1.79 5.91 1.22 0.66 0.61 2015 1.79 5.91 1.22 2016 1.79 5.91 1.22 0.66 0.61 2016 1.79 5.91 1.22 2017 1.79 5.91 1.22 0.66 0.61 2017 1.79 5.91 1.22 2018 1.79 5.91 1.22 0.66 0.61 2018 1.79 5.91 1.22 2019 1.79 5.91 1.22 0.66 0.61 2019 1.79 5.91 1.22 2020 1.79 5.91 1.22 0.66 0.61 2020 1.79 5.91 1.22 

Note: Fleet assumed to be new trucks in 2007; same fleet maintained throughout construction period.
MIAD Overlay Auxiliary Spillway - Phase 

Source Parameters Source Parameters

Type On-Road Type On-RoadCapacity 20 Capacity 20Engine Year 2007 Engine Year 2007Horsepower 405 Horsepower 405Category 300<hp<600 Category 300<hp<600NOx EF 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx EF 0.2 g/bhp-hrSchedule 6.5 hr/day Schedule 12 hr/dayLoad Factor 0.57 Load Factor 0.57

Exhaust Emission Factors, lb/day Exhaust Emission Fact

Year ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 Year ROG CO NOx 

2006 -- -- -- -- -- 2006 -- -- -- 2007 1.79 5.91 0.66 0.66 0.61 2007 1.79 5.91 1.22 2008 1.79 5.91 0.66 0.66 0.61 2008 1.79 5.91 1.22 2009 1.79 5.91 0.66 0.66 0.61 2009 1.79 5.91 1.22 2010 1.79 5.91 0.66 0.66 0.61 2010 1.79 5.91 1.22 2011 1.79 5.91 0.66 0.66 0.61 2011 1.79 5.91 1.22 2012 1.79 5.91 0.66 0.66 0.61 2012 1.79 5.91 1.22 2013 1.79 5.91 0.66 0.66 0.61 2013 1.79 5.91 1.22 2014 1.79 5.91 0.66 0.66 0.61 2014 1.79 5.91 1.22 2015 1.79 5.91 0.66 0.66 0.61 2015 1.79 5.91 1.22 2016 1.79 5.91 0.66 0.66 0.61 2016 1.79 5.91 1.22 2017 1.79 5.91 0.66 0.66 0.61 2017 1.79 5.91 1.22 2018 1.79 5.91 0.66 0.66 0.61 2018 1.79 5.91 1.22 2019 1.79 5.91 0.66 0.66 0.61 2019 1.79 5.91 1.22 2020 1.79 5.91 0.66 0.66 0.61 2020 1.79 5.91 1.22 
Attachment E
Attachment E

Diesel Truck Emission Factors by EMFAC2002 (Annual Average)

Summary of Emission Factors for Offsite Haul (Marysville/Woodland) (HHDT) (g/mile

PM10 

Year ROG CO NOx Total Running Tire Wear Brake Wear SO2 Total Runnin

2007 0.676 2.506 11.351 1.153 0.294 0.036 0.013 0.021 0.285 0.271 2008 0.636 2.354 10.495 1.132 0.273 0.036 0.013 0.021 0.265 0.251 2009 0.597 2.209 9.689 1.112 0.253 0.036 0.013 0.021 0.247 0.233 2010 0.554 2.052 8.705 1.088 0.229 0.036 0.013 0.021 0.225 0.211 2011 0.512 1.908 7.768 1.067 0.208 0.036 0.013 0.021 0.205 0.191 2012 0.472 1.775 6.892 1.047 0.188 0.036 0.013 0.021 0.187 0.173 2013 0.434 1.656 6.094 1.030 0.171 0.036 0.013 0.021 0.172 0.158 2014 0.399 1.548 5.367 1.015 0.156 0.036 0.013 0.021 0.158 0.144 2015 0.368 1.456 4.723 1.002 0.143 0.036 0.013 0.021 0.146 0.132 2016 0.339 1.371 4.134 0.990 0.131 0.036 0.013 0.021 0.135 0.121 2017 0.313 1.294 3.606 0.980 0.121 0.036 0.013 0.021 0.125 0.111 2018 0.289 1.226 3.137 0.970 0.111 0.036 0.013 0.021 0.116 0.102 2019 0.270 1.172 2.738 0.962 0.103 0.036 0.013 0.021 0.109 0.095 2020 0.253 1.127 2.396 0.955 0.096 0.036 0.013 0.021 0.103 0.089 

*Includes offsite haul trucks to Marysville and Woodland (30 mph) - all trucks assumed to be DIESEL.

MRI Report

Recommended Paved Road PM10 Emission Factorsg/mile high-ADT low-ADT ave-ADT

Average conditions 0.37 1.3 0.81Worst-case conditions 0.64 3.9 2.1Paved Road DustPM10 Fraction 0.4572PM2.5 Fraction 0.0772PM2.5 EF 0.35 g/mile
Attachment F
Attachment F

NOx Construction Equipment EmissionsTABLE 1 Months of Activity per Year

Activites Duration Op. Mos. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 1 9/07 - 3/09 18 3.5 12 2.5

RWD Static Mods 1/09 - 3/10 15 0 0 12 3LWD Static Mods 12/07 - 3/09 15 0.5 12 2.5MIAD Jet Grout 7/08 - 12/09 17 5.5 11.5Dike 5 Static Mods 9/09 - 5/10 8 3.5 4.5Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 2 1/10 - 5/14 40 12 12 6 6 4

Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 3 9/11 - 12/14 39 3.5 12 12 11.5Main Dam Construction 1/14 - 8/20 14 2.0 2.1 2.1 MIAD Overlay 6/15 - 4/17 22 6.5 12.0 Dike 4 Static Mods 9/17 - 4/18 7 

Dike 6 Static Mods 9/17 - 4/18 7 Dike 1 5/10 - 9/14 1 1Dike 2 5/10 - 9/14 1 1Dike 3 5/10 - 9/14 1 1Dike 4 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 1 1Dike 5 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 2Dike 6 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 2RWD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 4 4LWD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 2Dike 7 5/10 - 9/14 1 1Dike 8 5/10 - 9/14 1 1MIAD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 4 4

TABLE 2 NOx Emissions in tons per year [1,2,3]

Activites Duration Op. Mos. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 1 9/07 - 3/09 18 8.14 26.42 5.21

RWD Static Mods 1/09 - 3/10 15 - - 12.12 2.79LWD Static Mods 12/07 - 3/09 15 0.55 12.31 2.40MIAD Jet Grout 7/08 - 12/09 17 4.44 8.77Dike 5 Static Mods 9/09 - 5/10 8 3.19 3.70Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 2 1/10 - 5/14 40 - - 25.48 24.00 11.30 6.66 10.66 -Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 3 9/11 - 12/14 39 7.51 23.82 19.41 22.06 - -Main Dam Construction 1/14 - 8/20 14 1.21 1.13 1.02 MIAD Overlay 6/15 - 4/17 22 7.24 12.31 Dike 4 Static Mods 9/17 - 4/18 7 Dike 6 Static Mods 9/17 - 4/18 7 Dike 1 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.67Dike 2 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.67Dike 3 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.67Dike 4 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.72Dike 5 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 1.44Dike 6 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 1.44RWD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 4 3.25

LWD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 1.16Dike 7 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.53

Dike 8 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.53MIAD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 4 2.74Miscellaneous On-site (e.g., paving) - - 0.44 0.44 0.56 - 0.14 - 0.02 - Offsite Haul Trucks 0.53 1.43 3.73 3.80 3.96 3.04 3.60 2.74 2.66 2.33 Worker Trips 0.42 2.32 2.18 2.32 2.60 2.65 2.60 2.88 0.39 0.70 

TOTAL 9.64 46.92 38.05 40.55 42.21 45.87 35.63 39.49 11.44 16.36 

Notes: 1 Assumes that 20 cu yd on-highway haul trucks are used to haul Auxiliary Spillway spoils, and no other mitigation is assumed

2 Emission factors applied to Auxiliary Spillway hauling are for new 2007 on-road diesel engines meeting the 0.2 g/(bhp-hr) NOx standa

- i.e., only 2007 on-road diesel trucks are used for hauling Auxiliary Spillway spoils.

3 Emission factors for all other non-road (offroad) equipment are based on ARB OFFROAD2007 model.
Attachment F

CO Construction Equipment EmissionsTABLE 1 Months of Activity per Year

Activites Duration Op. Mos. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 1 9/07 - 3/09 18 3.5 12 2.5RWD Static Mods 1/09 - 3/10 15 0 0 12 3LWD Static Mods 12/07 - 3/09 15 0.5 12 2.5MIAD Jet Grout 7/08 - 12/09 17 5.5 11.5Dike 5 Static Mods 9/09 - 5/10 8 3.5 4.5Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 2 1/10-5/14 40 12 12 6 6 4Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 3 9/11 - 12/14 39 3.5 12 12 11.5Main Dam Construction 1/14 - 8/20 14 2.0 2.1 2.1 

MIAD Overlay 6/15 - 4/17 22 6.5 12.0 Dike 4 Static Mods 9/17 - 4/18 7 Dike 6 Static Mods 9/17 - 4/18 7 Dike 1 5/10 - 9/14 1 1Dike 2 5/10 - 9/14 1 1Dike 3 5/10 - 9/14 1 1Dike 4 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 1 1Dike 5 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 2Dike 6 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 2RWD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 4 4LWD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 2Dike 7 5/10 - 9/14 1 1Dike 8 5/10 - 9/14 1 1MIAD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 4 4

TABLE 2 CO Emissions in tons per year [1,2]

Activites Duration Op. Mos. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 1 9/07 - 3/09 18 9.90 33.50 6.89

RWD Static Mods 1/09 - 3/10 15 - - 6.29 1.50LWD Static Mods 12/07 - 3/09 15 0.27 6.29 1.25MIAD Jet Grout 7/08 - 12/09 17 2.45 4.96Dike 5 Static Mods 9/09 - 5/10 8 2.23 2.78Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 2 1/10-5/14 40 - - 32.68 32.33 15.88 16.01 10.51 -Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 3 9/11 - 12/14 39 6.92 22.84 23.25 21.54 - -Main Dam Construction 1/14 - 8/20 14 0.55 0.57 0.5MIAD Overlay 6/15 - 4/17 22 3.59 6.5Dike 4 Static Mods 9/17 - 4/18 7 Dike 6 Static Mods 9/17 - 4/18 7 Dike 1 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.34Dike 2 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.34Dike 3 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.34Dike 4 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.36Dike 5 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 0.72Dike 6 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 0.72RWD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 4 1.98

LWD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 0.63Dike 7 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.30

Dike 8 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.30MIAD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 4 1.90Miscellaneous On-site (e.g., paving) - - 0.42 0.58 0.80 - 0.20 - - - Offsite Haul Trucks 0.12 0.32 0.85 0.90 0.97 0.83 0.93 0.79 0.82 0.7Worker Trips 0.13 0.72 0.67 0.69 0.77 0.78 0.77 0.85 0.11 0.2

TOTAL 10.42 43.27 23.57 40.14 43.60 40.94 43.76 36.14 5.09 8.0

Notes: 1 Assumes that 20 cu yd on-highway haul trucks are used to haul Auxiliary Spillway spoils, and no other mitigation is assumed

2 Emission factors for all other non-road (offroad) equipment are based on ARB OFFROAD2007 model.
Attachment F

PM10 Construction Equipment Emissions

TABLE 1 Months of Activity per Year

Activites Duration Op. Mos. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2

Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 1 9/07 - 3/09 18 3.5 12 2.5

RWD Static Mods 1/09 - 3/10 15 0 0 12 3LWD Static Mods 12/07 - 3/09 15 0.5 12 2.5MIAD Jet Grout 7/08 - 12/09 17 5.5 11.5Dike 5 Static Mods 9/09 - 5/10 8 3.5 4.5Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 2 1/10 - 3/14 40 12 12 6 6 4Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 3 9/11 - 12/14 39 3.5 12 12 11.5Main Dam Construction 1/14 - 8/20 14 2.0 2.1 2.1 MIAD Overlay 6/15 - 4/17 22 6.5 12.0 

Dike 4 Static Mods 9/17 - 4/18 7 

Dike 6 Static Mods 9/17 - 4/18 7 Dike 1 5/10 - 9/14 1 1Dike 2 5/10 - 9/14 1 1Dike 3 5/10 - 9/14 1 1Dike 4 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 1 1Dike 5 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 2Dike 6 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 2RWD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 4 4LWD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 2Dike 7 5/10 - 9/14 1 1Dike 8 5/10 - 9/14 1 1MIAD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 4 4

TABLE 2 PM10 Emissions in tons per year [1,2]

Activites Duration Op. Mos. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2

Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 1 9/07 - 3/09 18 1.10664 3.7351054 0.76706

RWD Static Mods 1/09 - 3/10 15 0 0 0.69144 0.16358LWD Static Mods 12/07 - 3/09 15 0.03053 0.6976596 0.13874MIAD Jet Grout 7/08 - 12/09 17 0.2682747 0.54039Dike 5 Static Mods 9/09 - 5/10 8 0.20236 0.24502Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 2 1/10 - 3/14 40 0 0 3.67513 3.6078521 1.7697891 1.7362355 1.13649 0Auxiliary Spillway Construction Phase 3 9/11 - 12/14 39 0.7529354 2.4993369 2.4223014 2.25302 0 0Main Dam Construction 1/14 - 8/20 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 MIAD Overlay 6/15 - 4/17 22 1.5 2.7 

Dike 4 Static Mods 9/17 - 4/18 7 

Dike 6 Static Mods 9/17 - 4/18 7 Dike 1 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.03806Dike 2 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.03806Dike 3 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.0173Dike 4 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.0404555Dike 5 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 0.080911Dike 6 Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 0.080911RWD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 4 0.2139521LWD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 2 0.0673611Dike 7 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.0316326Dike 8 5/10 - 9/14 1 0.0316326MIAD Raise 5/10 - 9/14 4 0.19154Fugitive Dust (Onsite), mitigated 1.49 6.78 9.76 8.89 8.99 9.40 10.87 10.49 5.85 9.83 

On-site Hauling Fugitive Dust (unpaved, 300 d/y, 200 mi/d max) 21.82 21.82 21.82 21.82 21.82 21.82 21.82 21.82 5.45 5.45 Blasting 12.13 12.13 12.13 12.13 12.13 12.13 12.13 12.13 - - Concrete Batching - 6.26 6.26 6.68 6.68 22.96 22.96 22.96 Crushing 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80Offsite Haul Trucks 0.05 0.15 0.43 0.47 0.54 0.51 0.55 0.52 0.56 0.56 Worker Trips 0.25 1.36 1.27 1.35 1.50 1.54 1.50 1.67 0.23 0.40 

TOTAL 38.68 55.00 55.81 57.31 58.02 76.17 75.00 74.37 15.41 18.96 1

Notes: 1 Assumes that 20 cu yd on-highway haul trucks are used to haul Auxiliary Spillway spoils, andno other mitigation is assumed

2 Emission factors for all other non-road (offroad) equipment are based on ARB OFFROAD2007 model.

10 Silt content, %40 Vehicle weight, tons1.5 k for PM100.15 k for PM2.50.9 a0.45 b300 P (days/yr with at least 0.01 in. rain PLUS 3x day watering)

0.72723 E = k(s/12)a(W/3)b[(365-P)/365], lb/VMT

AP-42, Section 13.2.2 - Unpaved Roads, November 2006.
Attachment G
Attachment G

OFFROAD EQUIPMENT EMISSION INVENTORIESNOx

NOx Annual Emissions (tons per year)

Equipment Name OFFROAD Category 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201Water Truck Off-Highway Trucks/Water Trucks 0.17 0.83 0.59 0.69 0.71 0.68 0.59 0.55 0.25 0.

 

Pick-up Trucks Pick-up Trucks 0.26 1.36 1.18 1.98 1.94 1.70 1.70 1.40 0.44 0.

 

Excavator 330 BL/220hp Excavators 0.08 1.75 2.17 2.78 2.70 3.30 2.25 2.60 0.90 1.

 

Excavator 365BL II/404 HP Excavators 1.29 4.13 0.80 1.80 2.12 2.25 2.05 1.57 0.58 0.

 

Loader 938 G/160 hp Rubber Tired Loaders 0.34 1.59 1.33 1.52 1.79 2.43 1.38 2.14 0.39 0.

 

Loader 966 GII/246 hp Rubber Tired Loaders 0.38 2.02 1.26 1.17 1.16 1.25 1.17 0.92 0.35 0.

 

Scraper 631E/450 hp Scrapers - - 0.41 0.48 - - - - - - 

Compactor 433/96 hp Off-Highway Tractors/Compactors 0.44 2.36 1.71 1.66 1.45 1.60 1.52 1.25 0.50 0.

 

Compactor 434C/70 hp Off-Highway Tractors/Compactors - - - 1.17 1.12 0.53 0.51 0.32 - - 

Dump Truck 285 hp D300 On-Road Haul Trucks 1.42 7.76 5.46 3.07 2.51 2.59 2.16 1.70 - - 

Dump Truck 405 hp D400 On-Road Haul Trucks 0.67 2.29 0.48 3.43 3.43 1.71 1.71 1.14 - - 

Dozer D4/80 hp Crawler Tractors - 0.74 1.67 0.55 0.48 0.53 0.17 0.31 0.55 0.

 

Dozer D6/185 hp Crawler Tractors 0.06 1.36 1.55 1.74 1.74 1.89 1.77 1.41 0.55 0.

 

Dozer D8R/307 hp Crawler Tractors 0.49 2.34 1.98 1.69 2.22 1.89 1.77 1.41 0.55 0.

 

Grader 14H/215 hp Graders 0.44 1.43 0.44 1.71 1.91 2.07 1.63 1.42 0.44 0.

 

Haul Truck Tractor Trailer On-Road Haul Trucks 1.42 7.40 5.86 3.60 3.51 6.05 5.35 4.34 1.56 2.

 

Rear Dump Truck 405 hp D400 On-Road Haul Trucks 0.67 2.29 0.88 1.31 1.61 3.00 3.00 2.75 0.92 1.

 

Drill Rig - Ingersol Rand CM 375/215 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.27 0.81 0.15 0.65 0.74 0.75 0.68 0.56 0.05 0.

 

Drill Rig - Atlantic LDH80T/177 hp Bore/Drill Rigs - 0.37 0.69 - - - - - - - 

Pump - 200 gpm/8 hp gas Pumps - 0.15 0.37 0.39 0.36 0.39 0.37 0.33 0.03 0.

 

Concrete pump - 65 yph/150 hp Pumps - 0.15 0.29 0.35 0.46 0.50 0.40 0.39 0.03 0.

 

Concrete portable mixer - electric Electric - - - - - - - - - - 

Air compressor - 1550 cfm, 150 psi/525 hp Air Compressors 0.30 1.86 1.97 0.88 1.06 1.14 1.05 0.91 0.09 0.

 

Generator - 200 kw/270 hp Generator Sets (<250) - 0.17 0.44 0.18 0.11 0.13 0.04 0.11 0.03 0.

 

Generator - 500 kw/700 hp Generator Sets (<500) - - - 0.82 0.99 1.07 0.99 0.77 - - Crane Cranes - - - 0.35 1.00 2.06 1.53 1.69 0.17 0.

 

Total On-site Equipment Engines 8.69 43.17 31.70 33.98 35.10 39.53 33.80 30.01 8.37 13.

 
Attachment G

OFFROAD EQUIPMENT EMISSION INVENTORIESCO

CO Annual Emissions (tons per year)

Equipment Name OFFROAD Category 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201Water Truck Off-Highway Trucks/Water Trucks 0.85 4.57 3.65 3.79 3.65 3.74 2.96 3.03 1.50 2.

 

Pick-up Trucks Pick-up Trucks 0.27 1.40 1.19 1.97 1.93 1.67 1.66 1.36 0.02 0.

 

Excavator 330 BL/220hp Excavators 0.02 0.51 0.68 0.89 0.82 1.05 0.76 0.96 0.61 0.

 

Excavator 365BL II/404 HP Excavators 0.38 1.20 0.23 0.53 0.65 0.72 0.69 0.58 - - Loader 938 G/160 hp Rubber Tired Loaders 0.12 0.58 0.54 0.65 0.74 1.06 0.64 1.05 0.96 1.

 

Loader 966 GII/246 hp Rubber Tired Loaders 0.13 0.73 0.48 0.46 0.48 0.54 0.54 0.45 - - Scraper 631E/450 hp Scrapers - - 0.19 0.24 - - - - - - 

Compactor 433/96 hp Off-Highway Tractors/Compactors 0.21 1.16 0.91 0.92 0.78 0.90 0.89 0.76 - - 

Compactor 434C/70 hp Off-Highway Tractors/Compactors - - - 0.61 0.61 0.30 0.30 0.20 - - 

Dump Truck 285 hp D300 On-Road Haul Trucks 0.59 3.30 2.41 1.44 1.17 1.27 1.11 0.93 0.11 0.

 

Dump Truck 405 hp D400 On-Road Haul Trucks 3.22 11.06 2.30 16.59 16.59 8.29 8.29 5.53 - - 

Dozer D4/80 hp Crawler Tractors - 0.30 0.70 0.25 0.19 0.22 0.07 0.13 0.25 0.

 

Dozer D6/185 hp Crawler Tractors 0.02 0.56 0.64 0.71 0.71 0.78 0.75 0.61 - - 

Dozer D8R/307 hp Crawler Tractors 0.21 0.96 0.83 0.72 0.91 0.78 0.75 0.61 - - 

Grader 14H/215 hp Graders 0.12 0.39 0.14 0.50 0.54 0.61 0.50 0.46 0.15 0.

 

Haul Truck Tractor Trailer On-Road Haul Trucks 0.59 3.15 2.70 1.83 1.63 2.95 2.76 2.37 - - 

Rear Dump Truck 405 hp D400 On-Road Haul Trucks 3.22 11.06 2.58 4.48 7.77 14.51 14.51 13.30 - - 

Drill Rig - Ingersol Rand CM 375/215 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.10 0.34 0.07 0.34 0.44 0.51 0.51 0.49 0.05 0.

 

Drill Rig - Atlantic LDH80T/177 hp Bore/Drill Rigs - 0.16 0.33 - - - - - - - 

Pump - 200 gpm/8 hp gas Pumps - 0.07 0.18 0.20 0.19 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.02 0.

 

Concrete pump - 65 yph/150 hp Pumps - 0.07 0.14 0.18 0.25 0.29 0.24 0.25 0.10 0.

 

Concrete portable mixer - electric Electric - - - - - - - - - - 

Air compressor - 1550 cfm, 150 psi/525 hp Air Compressors 0.10 0.62 0.63 0.27 0.32 0.34 0.32 0.29 0.03 0.

 

Generator - 200 kw/270 hp Generator Sets (<250) - 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.

 

Generator - 500 kw/700 hp Generator Sets (<500) - - - 0.24 0.28 0.31 0.29 0.24 - - Crane Cranes - - - 0.13 0.37 0.76 0.57 0.64 0.30 0.

 

Total On-site Equipment Engines 10.18 42.23 21.63 37.97 41.06 41.87 39.33 34.50 4.16 7.

 
Attachment G

OFFROAD EQUIPMENT EMISSION INVENTORIESPM10

PM10 Annual Emissions (tons per year)

Equipment Name OFFROAD Category 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 201Water Truck Off-Highway Trucks/Water Trucks 0.10 0.51 0.41 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.33 0.34 0.25 0.

 

Pick-up Trucks Pick-up Trucks 0.03 0.14 0.12 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.04 0.

 

Excavator 330 BL/220hp Excavators 0.00 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.

 

Excavator 365BL II/404 HP Excavators 0.05 0.15 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.

 

Loader 938 G/160 hp Rubber Tired Loaders 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.09 0.02 0.

 

Loader 966 GII/246 hp Rubber Tired Loaders 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.

 

Scraper 631E/450 hp Scrapers - - 0.02 0.02 - - - - - - 

Compactor 433/96 hp Off-Highway Tractors/Compactors 0.04 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.04 0.

 

Compactor 434C/70 hp Off-Highway Tractors/Compactors - - - 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.03 - - 

Dump Truck 285 hp D300 On-Road Haul Trucks 0.06 0.31 0.23 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.08 - - 

Dump Truck 405 hp D400 On-Road Haul Trucks 0.36 1.23 0.26 1.85 1.85 0.92 0.92 0.62 - - 

Dozer D4/80 hp Crawler Tractors - 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.

 

Dozer D6/185 hp Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.

 

Dozer D8R/307 hp Crawler Tractors 0.02 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.03 0.

 

Grader 14H/215 hp Graders 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.

 

Haul Truck Tractor Trailer On-Road Haul Trucks 0.06 0.30 0.25 0.16 0.15 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.08 0.

 

Rear Dump Truck 405 hp D400 On-Road Haul Trucks 0.36 1.23 0.28 0.49 0.87 1.62 1.62 1.48 0.92 1.

 

Drill Rig - Ingersol Rand CM 375/215 Bore/Drill Rigs 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.

 

Drill Rig - Atlantic LDH80T/177 hp Bore/Drill Rigs - 0.01 0.03 - - - - - - - 

Pump - 200 gpm/8 hp gas Pumps - 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.

 

Concrete pump - 65 yph/150 hp Pumps - 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.

 

Concrete portable mixer - electric Electric - - - - - - - - - - 

Air compressor - 1550 cfm, 150 psi/525 hp Air Compressors 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.

 

Generator - 200 kw/270 hp Generator Sets (<250) - 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.

 

Generator - 500 kw/700 hp Generator Sets (<500) - - - 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 - - Crane Cranes - - - 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.

 

Total On-site Equipment Engines 1.1 4.70 4 2.3 4.20 4 4.56 4.55 4.22 3.63 1.52 2.

 
Attachment H
Attachment H

OFFROAD EQUIPMENT EMISSION FACTORSNOx

NOx Emission Factor in grams per horsepower-hour ( g / [hp-hr

OFFROAD Category 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20

Scrapers 8.33 7.91 7.50 7.11 6.67 6.25 5.85 5.41 4.98 4.58 

 

Bore/Drill Rigs 6.10 5.42 4.83 4.33 3.81 3.37 3.04 2.67 2.17 1.75 

 

Excavators 7.28 6.78 6.32 5.89 5.38 4.91 4.49 3.98 3.52 3.10 

 

Cranes 7.79 7.37 6.96 6.57 6.12 5.69 5.28 4.81 4.38 3.98 

 

Graders 8.40 7.91 7.43 6.98 6.46 5.97 5.51 5.00 4.51 4.06 

 

Off-Highway Trucks 6.94 6.49 6.06 5.66 5.18 4.75 4.35 3.89 3.45 3.05 

 

Rubber Tired Loaders 8.48 7.97 7.49 7.04 6.56 6.11 5.69 5.24 4.74 4.27 

 

Rubber Tired Dozers 10.09 9.65 9.21 8.79 8.35 7.92 7.51 7.08 6.63 6.20 

 

Crawler Tractors 9.57 9.07 8.59 8.13 7.64 7.17 6.73 6.26 5.80 5.36 

 

Off-Highway Tractors 11.60 11.11 10.63 10.16 9.71 9.25 8.82 8.39 7.94 7.50 

 

Generator Sets (<250) 4.88 4.68 4.47 4.24 3.96 3.69 3.43 3.13 2.82 2.61 

 

Generator Sets (<750) 4.60 4.39 4.18 3.97 3.70 3.43 3.18 2.88 2.59 2.39 

 

Pumps 5.30 5.06 4.83 4.60 4.35 4.08 3.83 3.58 3.26 3.03 

 

Air Compressors 4.79 4.56 4.35 4.13 3.84 3.57 3.30 2.98 2.68 2.46