Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98.02-24-2016 - Board Item 15 - 2-72A Addendum to PEIR.pdf HELIX Environmental Planning Newhope Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project (Project No. 2-72A) Addendum to Final Program Environmental Impact Report Collection System Improvement Plan Orange County Sanitation District (March 2007) SCH #2006101018 January 2016 Prepared for: Prepared by: Orange County Sanitation District HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 10844 Ellis Avenue 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Fountain Valley,CA 92708 La Mesa,CA 91942 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Pace 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description..........................................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose and Scope........................................................................................................2 2.0 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS.....................................................................................................3 3.0 BASIS FOR DECISION TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM 4 4.0 DETERMINATION..................................................................................................................4 5.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED..........................................................5 5.1 Preparers 5 6.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................5 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................A-1 A. Aesthetics A-5 B. Agriculture and Forest Resources..........................................................................A-6 C. Air Quality...................................................................................................................A-8 D. Biological Resources A-14 E. Cultural Resources.................................................................................................A-18 F. Geology and Soils...................................................................................................A-21 G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................A-25 H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................A-27 I. Hydrology and Water Quality A-31 J. Land Use and Planning..........................................................................................A-35 K. Mineral Resources..................................................................................................A-37 L. Noise A-38 M. Population and Housing.........................................................................................A-43 N. Public Services........................................................................................................A-45 O. Recreation A-48 P. Transportation/Traffic.............................................................................................A-49 Q. Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................A-53 R. Mandatory Findings of Significance A-55 APPENDIX B-Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions TechnicalReport.............................................................................................................B-1 APPENDIX C-Biological Resources Letter Report.................................................................................C-1 APPENDIX D-Cultural Resources Study................................................................................................D-1 APPENDIX E—Acoustical Analysis Report. E-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Follows Page 1 Regional Location..................................................................................................................A-1 2 Project Vicinity (USGS Topography).....................................................................................A-1 3 Project Vicinity(Aerial Photograph) A-1 LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions.............................................................................A-10 2 Maximum Daily Local Construction Emissions....................................................................A-11 3 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions.............................................................................A-26 4 Estimated Total Annual GHG Emissions.............................................................................A-26 ADDENDUM TO FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT(MARCH 2O07) SCH#2006101018 NEWHOPE-PLACENTIA TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 2-72A) 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The Newhope-Placentia (NHP) Trunk Sewer is located in the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton. Existing flows are currently being diverted (pumped)into the Santa Ana River(SAR)line by the Yorba Linda Pump Station instead of being routed to the NHP Trunk Sewer due to insufficient existing capacity in the NHP Trunk Sewer. Future flows to the NHP Trunk Sewer are projected from the College Town development at California State University, Fullerton (Cal State Fullerton or CSUF), continued Anaheim Platinum Triangle land use change, future abandonment of the Yorba Linda Pump Station and diversion of flows from other Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD or Sanitation District)trunk lines during dry weather operation. The NHP Trunk Sewer Replacement Project 2-72A (the "Project") proposes the upsizing of the NHP Trunk Sewer along a new alignment, much of which is adjacent to the existing alignment. Specifically, the Project consists of the replacement of existing sewer line along the existing 14,205-foot alignment. The new pipeline would be located near the median or along the edge of Yorba Linda Boulevard and State College Boulevard. The existing pipeline varies from 18-inch pipe at the upstream end to 33-inch pipe at the downstream end. The new pipeline would be 30 to 48 inches in diameter. Approximately 1,900-feet of 30-inch to 36-inch vitrified clay pipeline placement along the alignment is occurring as a part of a currently-under-construction grade separation project (Project 2-65; see below for additional details regarding Project 2-65), and is not part of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in the replacement of approximately 12,300 feet of pipeline along the 14,205-foot alignment. The existing line would remain in place and in operation during construction. The new pipeline would be placed parallel to the existing line. The existing line would be abandoned in place following the completion of the new pipeline. At the southeast comer of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/State College Boulevard intersection, the existing pipeline leaves the roadway right-of-way and crosses the paved Cal State Fullerton parking lot. In this location, the proposed Project alignment would not follow the existing alignment, but rather, would be placed through the intersection of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/State College Boulevard, avoiding the Cal State Fullerton property. The City of Fullerton and the Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA)are currently constructing a vehicle undercrossing at the intersection of State College Boulevard and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (Project 2-65). State College Boulevard is closed between Santa Fe Avenue and Kimberly Avenue for the construction of Project 2-65. Utilities within the footprint of Project 2-65 are being replaced as part of that project. Therefore, the new pipeline for the NHP trunk sewer would connect at the upstream and downstream ends of the new trunk sewer currently being installed as part of Project 2-65. State College Boulevard is anticipated to be closed to traffic between Fender Avenue and Kimberly Avenue from January 2015 to June 2017 for the construction of Project 2-65, with traffic detours in place to route around the Project 2-65 closure. The proposed Project also includes the abandonment or removal of approximately 10,000 linear feet of an out of service 10 to 12-inch Wastewater Disposal Company (WWDC) sewer pipeline. This out of service sewer line was originally constructed in the early 1900's by a private company and is now owned by OCSD. The WWDC is at a depth of approximately 5 feet, so the proposed Project includes the removal of up to 4,500 linear feet of the WWDC in areas where the new proposed pipeline would occur in a common trench with the WWDC.The remaining portions of the WWDC(up to 5,500 feet)would be abandoned in place. 1108640.1 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope As lead agency, the OCSD prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR; SCH No. 2006101018) for the OCSD Collection System Improvement Plan in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code, section 21000 at seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 at seq., as amended). In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the Draft PER was prepared and distributed to public agencies and the general public by the OCSD on March 15, 2007, for a 45-day public review period. A Notice of Availability (NOA) for public review was posted at the Orange County Clerk's Office, a public notice was published in the Orange County Register on March 16, 2007, and a Notice of Completion(NOC)was filed with the State Clearinghouse of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. The notices included a list of locations where the document was available for public review. Public comments on the Draft PER were also solicited at a public hearing that was held on April 3, 2007. No substantive comments on content of the Draft PEIR or significant environmental issues related to the proposed Plan were raised at the public hearing. On August 22, 2007, the OCSD Board of Directors certified the PEIR, made findings, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approved the Collection System Improvement Plan, Job No. 7-61. The OCSD filed the Notice of Determination on August 23, 2007. The proposed Project is one of 19 Collection System improvement projects analyzed in the PER. The proposed Project is therefore a subsequent activity within the scope of the PER. (CEQA Guidelines§15168). Subsequent activities in a PEIR must be examined in light of the PEIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. [CEQA Guidelines§ 15168(c)] Public Resources Code Section 21166 limits the ability of an agency to require an additional EIR, once one has been certified for a project. Section 21166 provides as follows: 21166. Subsequent or Supplemental Impact Report;Conditions. When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs: (a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report. (b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. The CEQA Guidelines further refine the circumstances under which a supplemental or subsequent EIR may be required. Guidelines Section 15162 provides as follows: 15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations. (a) When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 1108640.1 2 (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR, was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous PEIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous PEIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative;or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous PEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. It should be noted that in March 2010, the CEOA guidelines were revised to include the analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions. GHG analysis was not required and not included as part of the 2007 PEIR. An analysis of GHG is included in this Addendum; however, impacts related to GHG emissions were not determined to be significant. Please refer to Section G of the attached Initial Study. 2.0 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS The Initial Study Checklist in Appendix A of this Addendum presents an analysis of all 17 environmental categories required for analysis by CEDA: aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. The proposed Project would not result in new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The analysis provided in the PEIR would not change due to the proposed Project. It was determined in this Addendum (based on the Initial Study Checklist contained in Appendix A)that the proposed Project modifications would not change the conclusions of the PEIR. The proposed Project does not meet any of the conditions that would require the preparation of a negative declaration or subsequent EIR set forth in Section 15162 of the Guidelines or any of the conditions set forth in Section 15164 of the Guidelines. 1108640.1 3 3.0 BASIS FOR DECISION TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 explains when an addendum to an EIR shall be prepared: 15164.Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration. (a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (a) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to a PER the lead agency's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence." 4.0 DETERMINATION Based on the information and analysis in this Addendum, and the Initial Study Checklist prepared concurrently with this Addendum (and included as Appendix A), pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines the OCSD has determined that: 1. There are no substantial changes to the Project that will require major revisions to the PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the PEIR; 2. Substantial changes have not occurred in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken that will require major revisions of the PEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the PEIR;and 3. There is no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time the PEIR was certified that shows any of the following: a) The Project will have one or more new significant effects not discussed in the PEIR; b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the PEIR; c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project;or d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the PEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. 1108640.1 4 5.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 5.1 Preparers Orange County Sanitation District(Lead Agency) Raul Cuellar, Project Manager Daisy Covarrubias, Senior Staff Analyst HELIX Environmental Planning(Environmental Consultant) Joanne M. Dramko, AICP, QAICC Reviewer, Principal-in-Charge Sheryl Horn, Project Manager Jason Runyan, Environmental Planner LEE& RO(Engineer) David Watson, P.E., Principal Engineer 6.0 REFERENCES Orange County Sanitation District, March, 2007. Program Environmental Impact Report, Collection System Improvement Plan. SCH No. 2006101018. Prepared by Integrated Program Management Systems. 1108640.1 5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1108640.1 6 APPENDIX A CEQA Environmental Checklist 1108640.1 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A Appendix A Discussion of Environmental Checklist The Final Program Environmental Impact Report(PEIR)for the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD) Collection System Improvement Plan (Plan)was completed in June 2007. The PEIR addressed potential environmental impacts that may result from the construction and operation of the proposed collection system improvement projects as identified in the Plan. The PEIR included analysis and discussion of environmental impacts as a result of the then OCSD Project 2-65 (which is now OCSD Project 2-72A) Newhope-Placentia (NHP) Trunk Sewer Replacement Project 2-72A (the "ProjecP). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), subsequent activities, such as the implementation of the proposed Project, must be examined in the light of the PEIR to determine whether any further environmental review is required.This Environmental Checklist assesses whether any further environmental review is required. Project Description 2007 PEIR In the PEIR, the proposed Project was described as the installation of 34,800 feet of 27- to 48-inch diameter pipe and 3,500 feet of 24- to 27-inch pipe along State College Boulevard between East Orangewood Avenue and Yorba Linda Boulevard, along Yorba Linda Boulevard between Associated Road and Stale College Boulevard,and north of Bastanchury Road near Associated Road. Current Project The Project as currently proposed includes the upsizing of the NHP Trunk Sewer in the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton. Existing flows are currently being diverted (pumped)into the Santa Ana River(SAR) line by the Yorba Linda Pump Station instead of being routed to the NHP Trunk Sewer due to insufficient existing capacity in the NHP Trunk Sewer. Future flows to the NHP Trunk Sewer are projected from the College Town development at California State University Fullerton (Cal State Fullerton or CSUF), continued Anaheim Platinum Triangle land use change, future abandonment of the Yorba Linda Pump Station and diversion of flows from other OCSD trunk lines during dry weather operation. The new trunk line shall be designed to accommodate 2040 peak wet weather flows. The Project alignment is located in the cities of Fullerton and Anaheim (Figures 1 and 2) and falls within the segments of State College Boulevard and Yorba Linda Boulevard as identified in the 2007 PEIR. The Project 2-72A alignment starts near the Yorba Linda Pumping Station, located at the intersection of Yorba Linda Boulevard and North Campus Road/Associated Road within the City of Fullerton (Figure 3). The Project alignment proceeds west on Yorba Linda Boulevard until the Yorba Linda Boulevard/State College Boulevard intersection. The Project alignment then proceeds south along State College Boulevard. The proposed Project alignment ends at State College Boulevard, approximately 500 feet south of State Route 91 (SR-91),within the City of Anaheim. Project Elements Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer The Project consists of the replacement of existing sewer line along a new alignment, much of which is adjacent to the existing alignment. The length of Project alignment is 14,205 feet. The Project, as currently proposed, is reduced in length as compared to the project identified in the PEIR (14,205 feet for the current Project versus 34,800 feet as described in the PEIR).The new pipeline would be located near the median or along the edge of Yorba Linda Boulevard and State College Boulevard. The existing pipeline varies from 18-inch pipe at the upstream end to 33-inch pipe at the downstream end. The new pipeline would be 30 to 48 inches in diameter. Approximately 1,900-feet of 30-inch to 36-inch vitrified clay pipeline placement along the alignment is occurring as a part of a currently-under-construction grade 1108640.1 A-1 r r' LOS ANGELES COU •Is,' �.._.- _..�.._.._ 9 1 i ORANGE COUN O♦Fgtiq ; Rgl,�,'pp�i — —• "1 Yorba FCC 000 ^ Fullerton Linda O,I;•♦p,� 3••♦ . r rr Buena �f Park Anaheim '•�S p % 1 .0 Orange \Gy� Garden Grove \ r \ Seal p ♦'•d Beach Westminster - �• Santa Tustin Ana 7q •� Fountain Huntington Valley o4 \ Beach ♦ Costa ♦ Mesa Irvine Lake l '♦.- Forest /+ \ Newport — %• ��Beach Mission Vielo / Also j Viejo Laguna / \Beach z Miguel ©'una O I - P0.CfC \y D wLRIVER�SIDECOUNTY•— _ OC¢R>I `\ San Juan z SAN DIEGO COUNTY y Dana Capistrano 1 Point Oi :+yy. Ban •�.. Clemente:..... �l• l Cop Ight©2014 Esrt Regional Location NEWHOPE-PLACENTIA TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT HELIX QOmn. Figure 1 Fnvir .arbl Planning r� lAWFMjW�.LL V�. am yy CC _ wWA AI olled yi , '.PLACENTI cA. ad ___ StA AVE low NZ •♦ —�tttl •7 ~` eta / T .H 1 Fn SM1 . VI ��11 RpFI ttW61 is IL', I� at✓+�'bo^•�.,�"r ,. AM . . f la tC1 ■ � � ` ■ '� �"'.'. ___ _-III red "'� M ill io. . lo—. .. .j is qqpp��yy r y � 1 4e�c '21ia we io el. _.at Pm Project Vicinity (USGS Topography) NEWHOPE-PLACENTIA TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT HELIXN ° °°°OP0 Figure 2 unronm,�miwamm�a W-Im NO wnW - ae' Fa i' +f k '"tA + �t 'Yr . S < ,v A n w� 3�.lSryfpilipp ye ' PfR Pl µ � � ✓T ll Z © �. Pg iAl Ame Sc� Mn / - ys MI �� r� 'r v V b LidBlvd4 P--. #) a Y" 41, q-� ssad < 9 Pryis _ N' 1 "t'a ..t `t�§E'.��' y# ` ♦.prt` ' �+-.: - 57 y. t � �Y`�irM#Y'y.�f'i1 a.•f' tlK4'F�R� N '� +�sI '�}7.� 5: � 9 ",�jK °ti. $ t °Mx r� sa 3 �' d[ a� wv 'y gw ;# "'" Ny��C##���4� €�ai' ^�sg, tr }}� ea. 7t���p . .:'•i I " 73 x M. Gs.. X 1 5- vx �y#y�t pT14`" # IMqp •+• nL �li�1 'j �i e ��I �51, ■IM Project ignment ' i',. �� IU ry st 7 ➢*ic o � sf d '�3'• `^�I'krenrsx � �� '��o- 'a�F 43+3'�f � � 'I � � � w 1 A ' 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A separation project(Project 2-65; see below for additional details regarding Project 2-65), and is not part of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in the replacement of approximately 12,300 feet of pipeline along the 14,205-foot alignment. The existing line would remain in place and in operation during construction. The new pipeline would be placed parallel to the existing line. The existing line would be abandoned in place following the completion of the new pipeline. At the southeast corner of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/State College Boulevard intersection, the existing pipeline leaves the roadway right-of-way and crosses the paved CSUF parking lot. In this location, the proposed Project alignment would not follow the existing alignment, but rather, would be placed through the intersection of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/State College Boulevard, avoiding the CSUF property. The City of Fullerton and the Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA)are currently constructing a vehicle undercrossing at the intersection of State College Boulevard and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (Project 2-65). State College Boulevard is closed between Santa Fe Avenue and Kimberly Avenue for the construction of Project 2-65. Utilities within the footprint of Project 2-65 are being replaced as part of that project. Therefore, there the new pipeline for the NHP trunk sewer installed as part of the proposed Project would connect at the upstream and downstream ends of the new trunk sewer currently being installed as part of Project 2-65. State College Boulevard is anticipated to be closed to traffic between Fender Avenue and Kimberly Avenue from January 2015 to June 2017 for the construction of Project 2-65, with traffic detours in place to route around the Project 2-65 closure. Wastewater Disposal Company Sewer The proposed Project also includes the abandonment or removal of approximately 10,000 linear feet of an out of service 10 to 12-inch Wastewater Disposal Company (WWDC) sewer pipeline. This out of service sewer line was originally constructed in the early 1900's by a private company and is now owned by OCSD. The WWDC is at a depth of approximately 5 feet, so the proposed Project includes the removal of up to 4,500 linear feet of the WWDC in areas where the new proposed pipeline would occur in a common trench with the WWDC.The remaining portions of the WWDC(up to 5,500 feet)would be abandoned in place. Pro act Setting General Land Use Land uses located in the northern part of the Project alignment near Yorba Linda Boulevard include a church, single-family residences, and a commercial area. Proceeding south on State College Boulevard from the Yorba Linda Boulevard intersection, land uses include single-family residences, La Vista High School,Western State College of Law to the west, and CSUF to the east. Proceeding farther south along the Project alignment, after the intersection of State College Boulevard and Nutwood Avenue, single- and multi-family residences and commercial areas occur along the Project alignment, to the beginning of Project 2-65. From the end of Project 2-65 to SR-91, land uses are mostly industrial with some commercial. For the portion of the Project alignment that extends beyond SR-91 to the south, which is located within the City of Anaheim, adjacent land uses consist of a mobile home park to the east and single-family residences to the west. Topography and Soils Topography within the Project alignment is a gradual north-south decline, with elevations ranging from approximately 252 feet above mean sea level lamed) in the northern portion of the Project alignment to approximately 187 feet amsl in the southern portion. Three soil mapping units are identified for the study area: Mocho loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes; San Emigdio fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes; and Metz loamy sand. In most areas, the native soil is no longer exposed and is covered by streets, sidewalks, and other urban features. 1108640.1 A-2 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A Vegetation Communities/Habitat Types Three vegetation community or land use types are located within the Project alignment: eucalyptus woodland (i.e.,eucalyptus groves), disturbed habitat(i.e., barren/annual grassland), and urban/developed land. Approximately 0.1 acre of eucalyptus woodland is located near the northern portion of the Project alignment, at the northwest comer of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/Almira Avenue intersection, where construction staging would occur in a dirt lot used for CSUF parking. The eucalyptus woodland is outside of the Project alignment and construciton staging area, but adjacent to this area on the northern side. Approxiamtely 0.7 acre of disturbed habitat is also located within the same area, in the dirt lot used for CSUF parking. This area has an overall lack of vegetation and the presence of bare ground. The remainder of the Project ailgnment and adjacent areas consist of urban and developed land. Project Construction The proposed Project would consist of standard open-cut trench construction methods along most of the alignment and trenchless construction (jack-and-bore) at two locations. Construction occurring simultaneously at two locations is a design requirement, due to scheduling constraints associated with portions of construction occurring adjacent to CSUF. For the open-cut trench construction, the trench area would be 8 feet in width, consisting of a 6-foot trench and 1 foot of disturbance on each side. The depth of pipeline placement associated with the open-cut trench method is anticipated to range from approximately 10 to 15 feet. The portions of the alignment where jackand-bore construction methods would be used include approximately 600 linear feet at the SR-91 crossing at the portion of the alignment that crosses SR-91 and 60 linear feet at the Orange County Flood Control Channel Crossing, with both occurring on State College Boulevard. Tunnel access pits would be constructed at each end of the two locations proposed for jack-and-bore methods. At the Orange County Flood Control Channel Crossing, the two pits would be 16 feet by 16 feet for the receiving pit at the north end and 16 feet by 24 feet for the launch pit at the south end. At the SR-91 crossing, one 10-foot by 15-foot receiving pit would be located north of the SR-91 westbound off-and on-ramps, in the landscaped median of State College Boulevard. The launch pit would be 10 feet by 34 feel and would be located within the landscaped median of the south side of SR-91, just south of the east bound on- and off- ramps. The depth of pipeline crossings at these two locations is anticipated to be approximately 16 to 18 feet. The Project construction would require the removal and replacement of approximately 83,700 square feet of pavement. Approximately 28,000 cubic yards of soil would be removed from the Project alignment and hauled to an approved offsite disposal location. Construction activities would require some lane closures along State College Boulevard and Yorba Linda Boulevard. Lane closures along Yorba Linda Boulevard would occur only during summer months (and possibly during December 2016 and January 2017, if not completed during the summer months), when CSUF is out of session. The closures along Yorba Linda Boulevard during summer months would require one lane to be kept open. Lane closures on State College Boulevard from Nutwood Avenue to Dorothy Lane would be also limited to summer work, and one lane would be open during this time. If work along this segment is not completed in the summer months of 2016, work would occur on weekends until the work is finished. Each of the lanes is 15-feet wide. Lane closures for the Project, including the remaining portions of State College Boulevard, would occur in small segments associated with the immediate area of pipeline construction. Lane closure lengths would be limited to 800 to 1,000 linear feet at a time. Construction Equipment For the purpose of the analysis contained in this Initial Study, it is assumed that construction would be occurring at two locations simultaneously, based on design requirements. It is assumed that construction activities would be occurring on both north and south portions of the alignment (which is divided by the Project 2-65 grade separation). Construction equipment at each construction location for the Project would include: • 1 large track excavator • pipe delivery trucks/Flatbed 1108640.1 A-3 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Tank Sewer Replacement Appendix A 5 dump trucks • 6 crew pickup trucks shoring and trench shields • traffic control trucks 1 water truck for dust control Construction Staging Construction staging for the Project would occur in four locations along the Project alignment. Two of these locations would be for general construction activities along the entire alignment,while the remaining two staging areas would be directly associated with jack-and-bore activities at the Orange County Flood Control Channel Crossing and SR-91 crossings. The two locations for general construction activities include the northwest comer of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/Almira Avenue intersection and the southwest corner of the South State College Boulevard/East Kimberly Avenue intersection. The staging area at the Yorba Linda Boulevard/Almira Avenue intersection is located approximately 700 feet west of the beginning of the Project alignment, in a dirt lot used for Cal State Fullerton parking. The second staging area near the South State College Boulevard/East Kimberly Avenue is located just north of the roadway closure associated with Project 2-65. For jack-and-bore activities, these would be a 38- by 115-foot construction staging area within the closed portions of travel lanes on State College Boulevard. The launch and receiving pits would be contained within the construction staging area footprint. For the SR-91 crossing, a 20- by 60-foot construction staging area would be located north of SR-91, and a 40- by 75-foot construction staging area would be located south of SR-91. Both staging areas would be located within the landscaped median of State College Boulevard, and would include the launch and receiving pits for the jack-and-bore activities. Construction Schedule Construction of the Project is projected to begin in July 2016 and be completed within 18 months subsequent to initiation. The average pipeline installation rate would be approximately 60 feet of pipe per day for the portion along Yorba Linda Boulevard, and approximately 100 feet per day for the portion along State College Boulevard. Construction activities and associated equipment maintenance would be limited to weekdays(excluding holidays)from 7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. Checklist Formal and Conclusions Each resource category in the Environmental Checklist is discussed below. The structure of the discussion is divided into three sections: a summary of the PER evaluation, responses to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist, and a conclusion whether new environmental effects not examined in the PER have been identified. All feasible mitigation measures from the PER have been incorporated into the Project design pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c). Based on the Environmental Checklist review, no new effects have been identified and the Project is within the scope of the PER 1108640.1 A4 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A A. Aesthetics Significance Criteria Potentially Si Lass Than Significant with Less Than Resource Category/Significance Criteria Significant Mitigation Impact No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Would the Project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but ❑ ❑ ❑ not limited to, trees, rock, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state or County scenic highway or County-designated scenic road? 3. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings that are open to public view? 4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that ❑ ❑ ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? PER The Initial Study prepared for the Plan determined that no adverse impact on scenic vistas or a state scenic highway designated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) would occur. Impacts related to visual character and light or glare would be construction-related only and temporary. These impacts would be less than significant. Checklist Review Would the Project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project follows the alignment of Yorba Linda Boulevard and State College Boulevard. The Project ends at State College Boulevard, approximately 500 feet south of SR-91. Within the City of Fullerton, State College Boulevard north of Yorba Linda Road is a designated existing scenic corridor. This portion of State College Boulevard is not within the Project boundaries, but it is located adjacent to the north of the proposed Project area. There are no designated scenic expressways or corridors within the City of Anaheim within or near the Project area. Implementation of the proposed Project may produce temporary visual impacts during grading and construction along the Project alignment. However, construction equipment would only be needed temporarily and any temporary impacts would cease once construction is completed. Once constructed, the proposed Project would be below ground and would not be visible. Impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The proposed Project would not affect a state scenic highway designated by Caltrans under the California Scenic Highways Program (Caltrans 2015). The nearest scenic highway to the proposed Project is along SR-91,from SR-55 to east of the Anaheim city limit. The portion of SR-91 that the Project 1108640.1 A-5 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A passes under is not within or visible from the designated portion of SR-91. No Impact to scenic resources would occur. 3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would result in a temporary change of appearance along the Project alignment during construction. Construction equipment, signage, vehicles, and soil stockpiles in the construction staging area would be visible to nearby residents and those traveling along the roads in which the pipeline would be installed. Upon completion of construction, no permanent changes to visual character or quality of the Project alignment would occur, as the proposed Project would be located below ground. Visual changes associated with the Project would be temporary and impacts would be less than significant. 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The proposed Project would include the construction and operation of a trunk sewer replacement. Construction activities would occur during the day and would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime views in the area. No above-ground lighting is proposed as part of the Project. The proposed Project improvements would be located below ground and their operation would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect nighttime views in the area. No impact related to light or glare would occur. Mitigation Measures No new mitigation measures for aesthetics are proposed and none are identified in the PEIR. New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. B.Agriculture and Forest Resources Significance Criteria Potenfially Less Than Less Than Resource Category I Significance Criteria Significant SlgnRlcant with Significant No Impact Im act Mitigation Im ct P Incorporated Pa Would the Project: 1. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? 2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? 3. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, ❑ ❑ ❑ forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? 1108640.1 A-6 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A Potenfially Less Than Resource Category I Sign�cancs Criteria Significant Signkca Less Than with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact P Incorporated Pa 4. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest ❑ ❑ ❑ land to non-forest use? 5. Involve other changes in the existing environment, ❑ ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? PEIR The Initial Study prepared for the Plan determined no significant agricultural impacts would occur as the proposed Project would be located in a fully developed urban area. Accordingly, the PEIR did not address agricultural impacts. Checklist Review Would the Project: 1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The proposed Project is not located in any areas of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project alignment is designated as "Urban and Built-up Land" by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection 2012) and occurs within existing roadways. Additionally, the proposed Project does not involve converting famtland to non-agricultural use. No impacts to Farmland would occur. 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed Project would occur within developed areas and within existing collection system rights-of-way. These areas are not zoned for agricultural use and are not under a Williamson Act contract. No impacts to agricultural use zoning or Williams Act contracts would occur. 3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. The proposed Project is not within or near forest land or timberland. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for such lands, and no impact would occur. 4) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The proposed Project is not within or near forest land. Accordingly, Project construction and operation would not convert forest land to non-forest use, and no impact would occur. 5) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The proposed Project would not involve changes in the existing environment which would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No 1108640.1 A-] 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Tank Sewer Replacement Appendix A change in land use or existing uses alignment the Project alignment would occur and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures No new mitigation measures for agricultural resources are proposed and none are identified in the PEIR. New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. C.Air Quality Significance Criteria Lass Than Potentially Less Than Resource Category/Significance Criteria Significant Sl Mitigant tion Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Impact Would the Project: 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan? 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ mncentretions? 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of people? PEIR The Initial Study prepared for the Plan determined that it would not conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). The PEIR addressed air quality and odor impacts. Air quality construction impacts were evaluated for excavation, sewer installation, and paving activities relative to compliance with criteria pollutant emission thresholds adopted by SCAQMD. The PEIR analyzed three separate phases; excavation, sewer installation, and paving. The PEIR determined that criteria pollutant emissions for any one of the proposed collection system improvements would be below the SCAQMD's significance thresholds; however, several collection system improvements occurring at the same time would result in construction emissions that would exceed SCAQMD's threshold for nitrogen oxides (NOx) which would be a significant impact. Additionally, the PEIR determined that construction activities would produce fugitive dust emissions, resulting in a short-term impact to air quality. The PEIR provided mitigation 1108640.1 A-8 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A measures 3.2-1 a and 3.2-1b to reduce NOx emissions, and mitigation measure 3.2-2 to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Operational air quality inputs from routine sewer line maintenance activities would be consistent with ongoing OCSD operational activities. Operational impacts would be less than significant. Sensitive receptors would not be significantly impacted as the temporary increase in emissions of criteria air pollutants during construction would not be expected to exceed SCAQMD established air quality thresholds for any one of the proposed collection system improvement projects. Emissions associated with operational activities would be minimal and are not anticipated to result in long-term operational impacts that conflict with SCAQMD-established air quality standards. The PEIR determined that the Project would be expected to create some objectionable odors as a result of sewer line modification but the impact would be temporary and less than significant. OCSD uses chemical addition to control odor, and the Project contractor would follow a site-specific odor control plan during construction, which would include monitoring, ventilating, chemical application, material containment limiting atmospheric exposure and activity staging. Checklist Review The analysis below is provided based on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report(HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. [HELIX]2015a), attached herein as Appendix B. Would the Project: 1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact.The Project is located in Orange County within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).Air quality in the SCAB, is regulated by the SCAQMD. As a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments, as well as cooperates actively with all federal and state government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). An AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The regional plan applicable to the proposed Project is the SCAQMD's AQMP. The two principal criteria for conformance to the AQMP are (1) whether a project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards and (2)whether a project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP(SCAQMD 1993). As described under response C.2 below, pollutant emissions from the proposed Project would be less than the SCAQMD thresholds and would not result in a significant impact. Further, the proposed Project does not involve a change to General Plan designations or zoning and, therefore, would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. No conflict with the 2012 AQMP would occur with the proposed Project. 1108640.1 A-9 2-72A Newhope-Placantia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A 2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project's construction emissions were estimated using the CaIEEMod model as described in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report prepared for the Project (Appendix B). Additional details of phasing, selection of construction equipment, and other input parameters, including CaIEEMod data, are included in Appendix A of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report. Thresholds of significance for allowable construction and operational air emissions have been established by the SCAQMD and are provided below(SCAQMD 2015). Thresholds of Significance for Construction Emissions. 75 pounds per day of reactive organic gases(ROG) 100 pounds per day of NOx • 550 pounds per day of carbon monoxide(CO) 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxides(SOx) • 150 pounds per day of respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less(PM10) • 55 pounds per day of fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less(PMz s) Projects in the SCAB with construction-related emissions that exceed any of the emissions thresholds may be considered to have significant air quality impacts. The results of the calculations for Project construction are shown in Table 1, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions. Regional emissions are summed for activities assumed to overlap. The model calculations take into account the implementation of PEIR mitigation measures 3.2-1a, 3.2-1b, and 3.2-2 and that construction is occurring in two locations simultaneously as part of the Project design. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the SCAQMD mass daily thresholds. Table 1 MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Phase Pollutant Emissions(pounds per day) ROG NOx I CO SOX I PM10 PMis Northern Alignment 1 13 9 <1 1 1 Installation Southern Alignment 1 13 9 <1 1 1 Installation Maximum Daily Emissions 2 26 18 <1 2 1 SCAQMD Regions/ 75 100 550 150 150 150 Thresholds Significant Impact? No No No No No No Source:HELIX 2015a As shown in Table 1, emissions of all criteria pollutants related to Project construction would be below the SCAQMD's significance thresholds. Thus, direct impacts from criteria pollutants generated during construction would be less than significant. 1108640.1 A-10 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A Ambient Air Quality—Loral Significance Thresholds (LSTs) Local pollutant concentrations were calculated using the SCAQMD LST methodology described in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report(HELIX 2015a). Activities at each overlapping sub-phase occur far enough apart such that they do not share sensitive receptors; therefore, localized emissions are not summed the same way regional emissions are. The applicable thresholds are taken from the LST tables for a 1-acre Project site located in SRA 17, Central Orange County, with sensitive receptors within 25 meters (82 feet) of activity. The results of the LST calculations are shown in Table 2, Maximum Daily Local Construction Emissions. Table 2 MAXIMUM DAILY LOCAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Phase Pollutant Emissions(pounds per day) NOx CO PMtn PM2.1 Northern Alignment Installation 11 7 <1 <1 Southern Alignment Installation 11 7 <1 <1 Maximum Localized Emissions 11 7 <1 <1 SCAQMD Localized Thresholds 81 485 4 3 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Source:SCAOMD 2009(thresholds).CalEEMod Outputs provided in Appendix A of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report(HELIX 2015a). As shown in Table 2, emissions of all criteria pollutants related to Project construction would be below the SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds. Thus, localized impacts from criteria pollutants generated during construction would be less than significant. Once the Project is complete, there would be no long-term changes to the operations of the pipeline; therefore, there would be no change to existing emissions. 3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. The region is a federal and/or state nonattainment area for PMte, PM2,5, and ozone. The Project would contribute particulates and the ozone precursors volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOx to the area during short-term Project construction. As shown in Table 1, construction emissions would be less than the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds, and as such, regional emissions during construction would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore, regional construction emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, and the impact would be less than significant. With respect to local impacts, cumulative construction particulate impacts are considered when projects may be within a few hundred yards of each other. Construction activities associated with the 2-65 Project as well as College Town development at CSUF could potentially occur at the same time as the proposed Project; however, each project would be implementing standard dust control and mitigation measures to reduce emissions. Further, as shown in Table 2, local emissions from the proposed Project would be less than the significance thresholds. Therefore, local construction emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, and the impact would be less than significant. Once the Project is complete, there would be no long-term changes to the operations of the pipeline; therefore, there would be no change to existing emissions. 1108640.1 A-11 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A 4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAQMD describes sensitive receptors as residences, schools, day-care centers, playgrounds, medical facilities, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions (medical patients or elderly persons/athletes/students/children)that may be adversely affected by changes in air quality. Impacts to sensitive receptors are typically analyzed for construction period criteria pollutants, operational period CO hot spots, and exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs). An analysis of the Project's potential to expose sensitive receptors to these pollutants is provided below. Criteria Pollutants from On-Site Construction As shown in Table 2, above, Project construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD's LSTS. The Project, therefore, would not expose sensitive receptors, which would be located within 25 meters of the Project construction activities,to emissions that would exceed the ambient air quality standards. Carbon Monoxide Hot Soots A CO hot spot is an area of localized CO pollution caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. A quantitative screening is required in two instances: (1) if a project increases the average delay at signalized intersections operating at Level of Service (LOS)E or F; or (2) if a project causes an intersection that would operate at LOS D or better without the project to operate at LOS E or F with the project. The Project would not result in a permanent increase in daily trips. Thus, the Project would neither cause new severe congestion nor significantly worsen existing congestion. Temporary delays may occur in the immediate vicinity of lane closures; however, these delays would be limited to the construction period and would cease upon Project construction. Further, lane closures would move along the alignment during Project construction and would not result in delays at the same location for an extended period. Based on these factors, the potential for a CO hot spot or exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial, Project-generated, local CO emissions is low and the impact would be less than significant. Exposure to TACs Construction activities would result in short-term, Project-generated emissions of diesel particulate matter from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment. The risks estimated for a maximally exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer time period. According to the SCAQMD, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the Project. There would be relatively few pieces of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment in operation, and the construction period would be relatively short, especially when compared to 70 years. Combined with the highly dispersive properties of diesel particulates and additional reductions in exhaust emissions from improved equipment, construction-related emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. In terms of long-term operations, the proposed Project does not include any new sources of TACs and therefore, would not generate substantial emissions of TACs. Short-term and long-term impacts associated with substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. 5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction equipment and activities could generate odors. Primary construction odor sources include diesel exhaust emissions from equipment operating on site. 1108640.1 A-12 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A There may be situations where construction activity odors would be noticeable by nearby residents, but these odors would not be unfamiliar or necessarily objectionable. In addition, odors could be temporarily emitted from the open pipelines during construction. The odors would be temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. Therefore, the impacts would be short-term, would not be objectionable to a substantial number of people, and would be less than significant. As discussed in the Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project No. 2-72A Technical Memorandum Number 5., Implementation Plan, odor control issues are expected to be minimal (LEE & RO 2015). The existing NHP trunk sewer does not have a permanent odor control facility and it has been confirmed that odor has not been an issue. During the design phase, LEE & RO would conduct odor samplings on the existing NHP trunk sewer. The requirements of OCSD's 2009 Facilities Master Plan for sulfide odors would be incorporated into the 24-hour liquid phase and the bi-weekly vapor phase sampling events. Current design of the sealed manholes and gas flaps would also be utilized to mitigate potential future long term odor problems. Odor impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures The PER identified potentially significant impacts associated with the emission of NOx and fugitive dust. The PEIR provided mitigation measures 3.2-1a and 3.2-1b to reduce NOx emissions, and mitigation measure 3.2-2 to reduce fugitive dust emissions. These mitigation measures from the PEIR would also be applicable to the proposed Project, and include the following: PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a: Contractors will maintain equipment engines in proper tune and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-1b: During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading or unloading queues will keep engines off, when not in use,to reduce vehicle emissions. PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Contractors will reduce fugitive dust emissions through implementation of the following dust control measures: • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose materials. • Apply water as necessary on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites with water sweepers. • Water or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers to exposed soil stockpiles or areas disturbed by construction activities which produce dust. • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. 1108640.1 A-13 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A D. Biological Resources Significance Criteria Less Than Potentially Less Than Resource Category/Significance Criteria Significant Sl Mitigant tion Significant NO Impact Impact Mitigation Impact p Incorporated � Would the Project: 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services? 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ® ❑ ❑ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ ❑ ® ❑ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑ biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 6. Conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ El Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional,or state habitat conservation plan? PER The PER evaluated biological resources within Orange County and the OCSD service area, noting that the service area is comprised of predominantly densely urbanized, residential, commercial and industrial developments. Potential impacts to biological resources would be largely limited to areas of naturalized habitat and tidal estuarine communities which are associated with several of the Plan projects. The PER identified potentially significant impacts to: special-status biological resources; aquatic fisheries from construction runoff; and jurisdictional areas, including wetlands. PER mitigation measures 3.3-1, 3.3-2, and 3.3-3 reduce impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level. 1108640.1 A-14 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A Checklist Review The analysis below is based on a Biological Resources Letter Report for the Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project(HELIX 2015b), attached herein as Appendix C. Would the Project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Special-status animal species are those listed as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and considered sensitive animals by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Cooper's hawk, great blue heron, and nesting birds have potential to occur in the Project area. Cooper's hawk is considered a watchlist species and is not listed as endangered or threatened, or designated as a species of special concern. The great blue heron is not listed as endangered or threatened, but is considered a special animal by CDFW due to its association with habitat that is continuing to decline in California. No other special-status plant or animal species have the potential to occur within the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat, inappropriate soil conditions, inappropriate elevations, existing disturbances, prevalence of non-native plant species, local and regional isolation of the site, highly urbanized areas associated with much of the site, which also completely surround the site, adjacency with existing developments, and past and ongoing disturbances, including noise, lighting, and pedestrian use. Cooper's Hawk Cooper's hawk was not observed during the biological survey, but has a potential to occur within portions of the biological study area that are immediately adjacent to the Project site. No active or inactive nests belonging to any raptor species were observed within the study area during the June 3, 2015 survey. Cooper's hawk is not federally or state listed as endangered or threatened. It was recently demoted to a watch list species, having previously been designated a California species of special concern. The species frequents urbanized areas in the region where suitable woodland habitat occurs for nesting. Cooper's hawk has the potential to forage over the site, and could potentially nest within the eucalyptus woodland associated with Fullerton Creek. In the unlikely event that Cooper's hawk is found nesting on the site during Project construction, implementation of PEIR mitigation measure 3.3-1 would ensure impacts would remain less than significant. Great Blue Heron Great blue heron was not observed during the biological survey, but has a potential to occur in portions of the biological study area that are immediately adjacent to the Project site. Great blue heron is not federally or state listed as endangered or threatened.The species frequents a variety of wetland habitats. Great blue heron has the potential to forage within Fullerton Creek. However, the portion of Fullerton Creek adjacent to the site does not contain appropriate nesting habitat for this species. In the unlikely event that great blue heron is found foraging on the site during Project construction, potential impacts would be limited to temporary displacement of non-breeding individuals and would not be considered significant. Nesting Birds Areas within and adjacent to the northeastern portion of the Project site contain trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that provide suitable nesting habitat for common birds, including raptors, protected under the MBTA and CFG Code. Construction of the proposed Project could result in noise levels exceeding a 60 decibel hourly average during the general bird nesting season (January 15 through September 15) 1108640.1 A-15 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Tank Sewer Replacement Appendix A and, therefore, could result in impacts to nesting birds in violation of the MBTA and CFG Code. Implementation of PEIR mitigation measure 3.3-1 would ensure impacts would remain less than significant. 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The proposed Project would impact 2.4 acres of urban/developed land and 0.3 acre of disturbed habitat. Neither community is considered sensitive, nor do these communities provide habitat for any special-status species. The Project would not impact sensitive natural communities, nor would it result in the removal of trees and shrubs. 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The June 2015 jurisdictional delineation conducted in accordance with the requirements of PEIR mitigation measure 3.3-3 confirmed that no federally-protected wetlands occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, no impacts to federally- protected wetlands would occur. There are jurisdictional areas associated with Fullerton Creek that occur adjacent to the northern portions of the Project site, near Vorba Linda Boulevard and Almira Avenue. Resources within the Creek at this location are considered United States Amy Corps of Engineers (USACE)-jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the U.S., Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)-jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the State, and CDFW-jurisdictional streambed. Project construction within work areas adjacent to Fullerton Creek could potentially result in indirect impacts to jurisdictional resources if the appropriate avoidance measures and best management practices (BMPs) are not implemented correctly. Indirect impacts include any runoff coming from and/or through the site that contain pollutants, sediment, toxins, etc. which then discharge into Fullerton Creek. However, with implementation of PEIR mitigation measure 3.3-2, these impacts would remain less than significant. 4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact. No wildlife corridors or linkages occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The Project site does not support habitat that would contribute substantially to the assembly and function of any local or regional wildlife corridors or linkages. The Project site is primarily on urban/developed land, and is surrounded on all sides by highly urbanized land. It is locally and regionally isolated and separated from undeveloped land by expansive development. The habitat that exists is relatively low in quality and is disconnected and isolated from better quality habitat in the local and regional area. Impacts to wildlife movement and nursery sites would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The Project would not conflict with any Orange County policies or ordinances. The Project would not conflict with any City of Fullerton or City of Anaheim policies or ordinances and no impact would occur. 1108640.1 A-16 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A 6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional,or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Project site is not located within the boundaries, nor does it occur within a city that is a signatory of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Project would not conflict with such plans and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures The PEIR contains the following mitigation measure related to special status nesting bird impacts: PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3.1: Evaluation of impacts to special-status plants, birds, mammals, and amphibians and reptiles will occur at the Project level. Specifically, all areas of natural habitat within the footprint of proposed construction activities with potential to support special-status biological resources will be surveyed according to standard protocol. Where special-status biological resources are identified within the Project footprint, appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures will be implemented. Depending on the special-status biological resources present, measures could include the following: Where special-status nesting birds are identified within the Project footprint, the following avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures will be implemented: • Project design will be evaluated to determine if a 500-foot minimum exclusionary zone can be established around active bird nests; where feasible, this will be implemented, and construction activities will be relocated or modified to avoid impact. • If nesting birds or active nest sites cannot be avoided, construction will be timed to avoid the active nesting season (February to August), and construction activities will not commence in the vicinity of nests until young have fledged. The PEIR contains the following mitigation measure related to indirect impacts to jurisdictional areas that are applicable to the proposed Project: PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3.2: To avoid impacts to aquatic fisheries, best management practices will be implemented to avoid contaminant runoff from construction practices.This will include the following: • Equipment will not be operated in areas of ponded or flowing water. Stationary equipment such as motors, pumps, generators, and welders will be located a minimum of 200 feet outside aquatic and wetland habitats; construction staging areas, stockpiling, and equipment storage will be located a minimum of 200 feet outside aquatic and wetland habitats. • Construction vehicles and equipment will be checked periodically to ensure that proper working conditions with no potential for fugitive emissions of oil and other hazardous products exists. Refueling or lubrication of vehicles and cleaning of equipment, or other activities that involve open use of fuels, lubricants, or solvents, will occur in upland locations at least 200 feet away from aquatic or wetland habitats. • Temporary sediment-retention structures, hay bales, or silt fencing will be placed downstream of construction areas; sediment-retention devices will prevent sediment-laden water from draining offsite; sediment-retention devices structures will be maintained and repaired after flood events. PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3.3: Direct impacts to jurisdictional areas including wetlands generally will be avoided by identifying these communities at the project analysis level and designing project 1108640.1 A-17 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A components to avoid these areas. However, if impacts to jurisdictional wetlands cannot be avoided, then the following mitigation will be implemented: • Delineation of affected jurisdictional sites will be implemented and impacts analyzed; this information will support permit applications to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. • A proposed mitigation plan to compensate for impacts to jurisdictional areas will be developed and approved by the USACE; it will be implemented to compensate for impacts. • To avoid indirect impacts to jurisdictional areas from contaminant runoff, Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 will be implemented. New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. E. Cultural Resources Significance Criteria Less Than potentially Less Than Resource Category/significance Criteria Significant Sl Mitigant tion Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Ineorporatetl Impact Would the Project: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ❑ ❑ ❑ of a historical resource as defined in§15064.5? 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ❑ ® ❑ ❑ of an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5? 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature of paleontological or cultural value? 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ® ❑ ❑ outside of formal cemeteries? PER The PER provided an overview of archaeological and paleontological resources within Orange County and the OCSD service area. Four general areas of archaeological sensitivity and five general areas of paleontological sensitivity were identified within the OCSD service area. For Plan projects within these sensitive areas, the PER recommended mitigation measures requiring additional resource investigations during preliminary design and procedures to follow if resources are encountered during excavation, cultural resources discovery training, avoidance if resources are found, and notification of the county coroner in the event human remains are found (mitigation measures 3.4-1, 3.4-2a, 3.4-2b, and 3.4-2c). Checklist Review The analysis below is provided based on a Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project — Cultural Resources Study(HELIX 2015c), attached as Appendix D. 1108640.1 A-18 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A Would the Project: 1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. The Project is outside of identified historic districts in the cities of Fullerton and Anaheim. A total of 32 cultural resources studies have been conducted within Y: mile of the Project area, including seven that cover portions of the Project area itself. Four of these are reports of linear studies associated with freeways and underground utilities, and three are studies for commercial and residential development associated with CSUF. Ten cultural resources have been recorded within Y: mile of the Project. All of the resources are historic structures. Two of these are adjacent to the Project alignment: P-30-157295, a historic residence from 1931, and P-30-177119, a simple brick structure dating to the 1960s. Two historic residences have been recorded adjacent to the Project area, one of which (P-30-177119) is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)or the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). The other residence (P-30-157295) is not NRHP-eligible, but it is of local significance, making it eligible for the CRHR. None of the resources are within the Project's impact area. All excavation and trenching for the Project would be within existing streets; there will be no impacts to standing structures. Based on this, the Project would have no effect on historic properties and no impact would occur. 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.59 Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Eight general areas of sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological resources have been mapped for Orange County; the Project area is outside these sensitive areas. As discussed in response E.1 above, of the 32 cultural resource studies conducted within %: mile of the Project area, including seven that cover portions of the Project area, ten resources were recorded, all of which were historic. No archaeological resources were identified as occurring within the Project area based on the records search. No evidence of archaeological resources were identified during a field survey of the developed Project alignment. The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians/Kizh (Kit'c) Nation recommended that a Native American monitor be present for all ground-disturbing activity, due to the cultural importance of this area to the Gabrieleno (Gabrieleno/Gabrielino)/Tongva people. Although the Project area has been subject to a great deal of past disturbance, which lessens the potential for intact cultural resources, based on the alluvial setting and the history of flooding in this Project vicinity, there is potential for unknown subsurface cultural resources to be impacted during Project construction. Implementation of PEIR mitigation measures 3.4-2a, 3.4-2b, and 3.4-2c below would ensure that impacts to archaeolgoical resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Based on Figure 3-3 from the PEIR, the Project alignment is not located within or directly adjacent to areas of paleontolgoical sensitivity. No impact would occur. 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. No human remains are anticipated to be discovered during Project construction. However, the discovery of unanticipated human remains would be a potentially significant impact. Compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e), Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and PEIR mitigation measure 3.4-2c below would ensure that impacts associated with human remains would be less than significant. 1108640.1 A-19 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures from the PER that would reduce impacts associated with archaeological resources and the discovery of human remains would also be applicable to the proposed Project, and include the following: PER Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a: Subsurface construction has the potential for exposing significant subsurface cultural resources. Due to the likelihood of encountering cultural resources, the Sanitation District will implement the following prior to commencement of construction activities: • Prior to construction, contractors, and Sanitation District staff will receive an archaeological orientation from a professional archaeologist regarding the types of resources that could be uncovered during construction activities and the identification of these resources. The orientation also will cover procedures to follow in the case of any archaeological discovery. PER Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b:lf cultural resources are encountered at any time during Project excavation, construction personnel will avoid altering these materials and their context until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation. Project personnel will not collect or retain cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include, but are not limited to, chart or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles, dark friable soil containing shell and bone, dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails, and refuse deposits(glass, metal, wood, ceramics)often found in old wells and privies. PER Mitigation Measure 3.4.2c: In the event accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the County Coroner will be notified immediately, and construction activities will be halted. If the remains are found to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission will be notified within 24 hours. Guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission will be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. 1108640.1 A-20 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A F. Geology and Soils Significance Criteria Less Than Potentially Less Than Resource Category/Significance Criteria Significant Sl Mitigant tion Significant NO Impact Impact Mitigation Impact p Incorporated � Would the Project: 1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. b. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c. Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ® ❑ ❑ liquefaction? d. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Result in substantial soil erosion, siltation, changes in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ topography and the loss of topsoil or unstable soil conditions from excavation,grading or fill? 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 16-1 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ❑ ❑ ❑ of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? PER The PER addressed issues associated with seismicity and ground shaking, liquefaction and settlement. It was noted that impacts would be less than significant if pipeline design and construction are in accordance with current engineering practices, including California Building Code, OCSD specifications and requirements, and all applicable seismic engineering guidelines. Furthermore, the PER indicated that pipeline rehabilitation would be likely to improve the seismic reliability of the existing pipelines. 1108640.1 A-21 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Tank Sewer Replacement Appendix A Checklist Review The analysis below is provided based on Technical Memorandum 4, Preliminary Geotechnica/Evaluation, Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement(Ninyo&Moore 2015). Would the Project: 1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? No Impact. The proposed Project is at risk for seismic events due to its location within southern California. However, the proposed Project would not traverse any known faults as delineated on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map nor would it be located within an Earthquake Fault Zone (Ninyo & Moore 2015). The nearest active faults are the Puente Hills Blind Thrust fault, located approximately 1 mile west of the Project alignment and the Whittier fault, located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the Project alignment (Ninyo & Moore 2015). The Project alignment is not within a currently established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. Additionally, no faults have been geologically mapped on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project alignment. The potential for surface fault rupture is considered to be low (Ninyo & Moore 2015). As such, no impact associated with rupture of a known earthquake fault is anticipated. b) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located in seismically active southern California, and is likely to be subjected to moderate to strong seismic ground shaking. Seismic shaking at the site could be generated by events on any number of known active and potentially active faults in the region. An earthquake along any of the known active fault zones could result in severe ground shaking and consequently that could potentially result in significant impacts to the proposed sewer line, including the rupture or severing of the pipeline (depending on factors such as event duration, motion frequency, and underlying soil/geologic conditions). The Project design, however, would incorporate measures to accommodate projected seismic loading, pursuant to existing guidelines such as the "Greenbook" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Greenbook Committee of Public Works Standards, Inc. 2012), and the International Building Code (IBC; International Conference of Building Officials 2012). In addition, the Project design would follow guidelines within the Califomia Building Code (CBC; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2). Based on the incorporation of applicable measures into Project design and construction, the potential impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The potential for seismic-related ground failure is associated with the probability of severe ground shaking as a result of an earthquake or a nearby active fault. There are no known active faults crossing the Project alignment and the potential for ground rupture due to faulting is considered low(Ninyo& Moore 2015). Liquefaction is the phenomenon where saturated granular soils develop high pore water pressures during seismic shaking and behave like a heavy fluid. This phenomenon generally occurs in areas of high seismicity where groundwater is shallow and loose granular soils or hydraulic fill soils subject to liquefaction are present. For liquefaction to develop, loose granular sediments below the groundwater table must be present and shaking of sufficient magnitude and duration must occur. Most of the proposed Project alignment is located in an area that is not subject to liquefaction during a seismic event. However, 1108640.1 A-22 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A the northern end of the proposed Project alignment, near Fullerton Creek, is mapped in an area subject to liquefaction. Groundwater data in this area is historically at depths of 10 feet. The potential for liquefaction in this area could be high, resulting in a potentially significant impact. In these areas, appropriate design considerations would be made to ensure the Project does not expose the proposed pipeline to loss from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. The proposed Project does not propose the placement of habitable structures, and thus, during its long-term operation, would not expose people to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death, from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. PEIR mitigation measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-2 would be implemented to reduce impacts associated with pipeline loss associated with seismic-related ground failure. Impacts due to seismio-related ground failure, including liquefaction,would be less than significant after mitigation. d) Landslides? No Impact. There are no known (mapped) landslides in the immediate vicinity of the Project site(Ninyo& Moore 2015). The Project alignment occurs within a road right-of-way and does not include, and is not immediately adjacent to steep slopes. Accordingly, no impacts associated with landslides would occur. 2) Result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts would be addressed through conformance with related National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, the NPDES Construction General Permit, and applicable Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) requirements. Specifically, this would entail implementing appropriate measures to comply with requirements identified in the NPDES Construction General Permit. Conformance with the noted NPDES standards is required prior to development of applicable sites exceeding one acre, and typically includes measures such as implementing an approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), an associated Construction Site Monitoring Program (CSMP), employee training, and minimum BMPs. Specific requirements for the proposed Project under the NPDES Construction General Permit would be determined during SWPPP development, after completion of Project plans and application submittal to the SWRCB. Typical erosion and sediment control measures that may be required in the Project SWPPP include the following: (1) seasonal grading restrictions during the rainy season (October 1 to April 30) for applicable areas; (2)preparation and implementation of a CSMP; (3) use of erosion control/stabilizing measures such as geotextiles, mats, fiber rolls, or soil binders; (4)use of sediment controls to protect the site perimeter and prevent off-site sediment transport, including measures such as silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bags, temporary sediment basins, street sweeping, stabilized construction access points and sediment stockpiles, and use of properly fitted covers for sediment transport vehicles; (5)compliance with local dust control measures, and (6)implementation of additional BMPs as necessary to ensure adequate erosion/sediment control and regulatory conformance. Based on implementation of appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs as part of, and in conformance with, the Project SWPPP and related NPDES requirements, associated potential erosion and sedimentation impacts would be avoided or reduced below a level of significance. Erosion and sedimentation BMPs implemented for the proposed Project would be further defined during the NPDES permit/SWPPP process, with the resulting measures taking priority over the more general types of industry standard measures listed above. Erosion and sedimentation are not considered to be significant long-term concerns for the proposed Project, as all affected areas would be returned to its current condition (roadway) following construction. Impacts would be less than significant. 1108640.1 A-23 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Tiunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Evaluation of liquefaction and landslides is provided in responses F.1(c) and (d). The proposed Project would be designed and constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and CBC seismic engineering standards (UBC, 1997 and CBC, 2001, respectively) and other applicable building codes. Backfill would be placed to meet standard engineering design requirements and local grading practices. PER mitigation measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-2 would be implemented. Impacts due to an unstable geologic unit or soil, including on-or offsite landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would be less than significant after mitigation. 4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Section 1803.2 of the Uniform Building Code pertains to foundations and requires special design considerations for structures resting on soils with an expansion index greater than 20, as defined by Table 18-1-B of the UBC. The proposed Project would be to an existing system and would be designed in compliance with requirements of governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes. The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact from expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the UBC, creating substantial risk to life or property. As such, impacts to the stability of geologic units or soils would be less than significant. 5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be installed as part of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would not result in impacts related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impacts due to the use of septic tanks would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures from the PER that would be applicable to the proposed Project include the following: PER Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: The Sanitation District will design and construct new facilities in accordance with the Sanitation District standards and/or applicable building codes. PER Mitigation Measure 3.5.2: Soil surveys will be conducted to determine the liquefaction potential along the routes for the improvements to the collection system. Pipelines will be installed within consolidated, engineered backfll. New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. 1108640.1 A-24 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significance Criteria Less Than Potentially Less Than Resource Category/Significance Criteria Significant Sl Mitigant tion Significant NO Impact Impact Mitigation Impact p Incorporated � Would the Project: 1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2. Conflict with any applicable plan,policy or regulation of ❑ ❑ ❑ an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? PEIR In March 2010, the CEQA guidelines were revised to include the analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. GHG analysis was not required, and not included as part of the 2007 PEIR. Checklist Review The analysis below is provided based on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report(HELIX 2015a), attached as Appendix B. Would the Project: 1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole, including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (1,120), ozone, and certain hydro-fluorocarbons. These gases, known as GHGs, allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth's atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the Earth's temperature. Emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are thought to be responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect and contributing to what is termed "global warming; the trend of warming of the Earth's climate from anthropogenic activities. Global climate change impacts are by nature cumulative: direct impacts cannot be evaluated because the impacts themselves are global rather than localized impacts. The effect each GHG has on climate change is measured as a combination of the volume of its emissions and its global warming potential. The global warming potential is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere, and is expressed as a function of how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2. For instance, CH4 has a global warming potential of 21, meaning that 1 gram of CH4 traps the same amount of heat as 21 grams of CO2. There are no established federal, state, or local quantitative thresholds applicable to the Project to determine the quantity of GHG emissions that may have a significant effect on the environment. California 1108640.1 A-25 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A Air Resources Board (CARB), the SCAQMD, and various cities and agencies have proposed, or adopted on an interim basis, thresholds of significance or threshold levels that require the implementation of GHG emission reduction measures. Because the Project is not a residential or commercial land use development Project, the SCAQMD adopted interim screening threshold of 10,000 metric tons (MT) carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e)for industrial projects is being used for project consistency with CEQA (SCAQMD 2008a). Emissions of GHGs related to the construction of the Project would be temporary. As shown in Table 3, Estimated Construction GHG Emissions,total GHG emissions associated with construction are estimated at 558 MT of CO2e. Table 3 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS Source Emissions MT CO2e) Northern Alignment Installation 279 Southern Alignment Installation 279 TOTAL 558 Amortized Construction Emissions 19 Source:HELIX 2015a ' The total presented is the sum of the unnounded values. ' Construction emissions are amortized over 30 years in accordance with SCAQMD guidance. Because GHG emission reduction measures for construction equipment are relatively limited, SCAQMD, in its Draft Guidance Document — Interim CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds, recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year Project lifetime and considered to be an element of operational emissions (SCAQMD 2008). The proposed construction activities, therefore, would contribute 19 MT CO2e emissions per year. Once the Project is complete, there would be no long-term changes to the operations of the pipeline; therefore, there would be no change to existing emissions. As described above, construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year period and added to operational emissions. As shown in Table 4, Estimated Total Annual GHG Emissions, with consideration of amortized construction emissions, the total annual estimated GHG emissions for the proposed Project are 19 MT CO2e per year. This value is less than the SCAQMD adopted interim threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year for industrial projects that is being applied to this analysis. Therefore, there would be no direct Project GHG emissions impact and any impact would be considered on a cumulative basis. Because the proposed Project's GHG emissions would be less than adopted thresholds, the emissions would not be cumulatively considerable.Therefore,the proposed Project's GHG emissions would result in a less than significant impact. Table 4 ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS Emissions ounce MT COae Amortized ConsWction Table 3 19 TOTAL 19 SCAQMD Threshold CEQA 10,000 SI n/ficant lm c1T No Source:HELIX 2015a 1108640.1 A-26 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A 2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact. As discussed in response G.1 above, the proposed Project would result in negligible GHG emissions. The proposed Project would not result in emissions that would adversely affect state-wide attainment of GHG emission reduction goals as described in Assembly Bill 32 and Executive Order 5-21-09. Construction emissions would therefore have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change impacts, and the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact to GHGs. No mitigation measures are proposed. New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Significance Criteria Potentially Less Than Less Than Resource Category I Significance Criteria J& significant Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Impact Would the Project: 1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2. Create a significant hazard to the public, or the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment or risk explosion? 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 5. Fora project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? 1108640.1 A-27 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A Potentially Less Than Resource Category I Significance Criteria Significant Signfica Less Than with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact P Incorporated Pa 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? 7. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ® ❑ ❑ adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 8. Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? PER The PEIR recognized that operation of the collection system improvements would include use of hazardous materials for odor and corrosion control. Accordingly, the PER addressed hazards associated with the transportation, storage, accidental spill, and improper disposal of hazardous materials. The risk of encountering areas of contamination during excavation activities was also addressed. The PER identified potentially significant impacts associated with the transportation, storage, accidental release, and improper disposal of hazardous materials. The PEIR also identified potentially significant impacts associated with improperly abandoned oil wells and construction activities encountering areas of contamination.All hazards and hazardous materials impacts identified in the PEIR would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures 3.6-1 through 3.6-6. Checklist Review Would the Project: 1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. During the Project construction period, hazardous substances used to maintain and operate construction equipment (such as fuel, lubricants, adhesives, solvents, and asphalt) would be present. The use or generation of such construction-related hazardous materials could potentially result in significant impacts through accidental discharge associated with use, storage, operation, and maintenance activities. The transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be conducted in accordance with applicable federal and State laws. PEIR Mitigation measures 3.6-1 through 3.6-4 would be implemented to ensure impacts due to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant after mitigation. 2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Refer to response H.1. The proposed Project could generate hazardous materials. Mitigation measures 3.6-1 through 3.6-4 would be implemented. Impacts due to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions would be less than significant after mitigation. 1108640.1 A-28 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A 3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Refer to response H.1. Construction and operation of the proposed Project could potentially emit hazardous emissions, or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Mitigation measures 3.6-1 through 3.6-4 would be implemented to reduce impacts associated with hazardous materials, substances, or waste to a less than significant level. Impacts of hazardous emissions and materials to schools would be less than significant after mitigation. 4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project alignment along State College Boulevard is adjacent to 19 facilities known on regulatory agencies' databases which have been impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons or chlorinated solvents. Most facilities have received regulatory agency closure, though potential to encounter low levels of contamination from these sites during construction is possible. Mitigation measure 3.6-6 would be implemented to reduce impacts associated with hazardous materials sites to a less than significant level. Impacts related to hazards to the public or the environment due to the Project's alignment adjacent to hazardous materials sites would be less than significant after mitigation. 5) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? No Impact. The proposed Project would have no safety hazard impacts on people associated with activities within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport, Fullerton Municipal Airport, is five miles east of the proposed Project. No impacts to safety hazards relating to proximity to a public airport would occur. 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? No Impact.There are no private airstrips in the Project vicinity.As such,the proposed Project would have no safety hazard impacts on people associated with activities within the vicinity of a private airstrip. 7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction of the proposed Project within existing collection system rights-of-way could encroach on traffic lanes along arterial roadways and could hinder emergency evacuation. The City of Anaheim and City of Fullerton General Plans do not identify evacuation routes in the City, however because State College Boulevard is a major thoroughfare connecting the two municipalities, it is reasonable to assume that it would serve as a de facto evacuation route should a situation arise where it were needed. Construction activities would require lane closures along State College Boulevard and Yorba Linda Boulevard, in segments of 800 to 1,000 feet at a time. PEIR mitigation measures 3.6-1 through 3.6-3 would be implemented. Impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans would be less than significant after mitigation. 8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The proposed Project would occur within developed areas and within existing collection system rights-of-way. The proposed Project is not anticipated to have an adverse impact related to the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. 1108640.1 A-29 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures from the PER that would be applicable to the proposed Project include the following: PER Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Transportation of hazardous materials will be in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations. PER Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: Prior to storage of hazardous materials, a Hazardous Materials Inventory and Business Emergency Plan will be fled with the Orange County Fire Authority. PER Mitigation Measure 3.63: In the event of an accidental spill, containment and cleanup will occur in conformance with the spill response and waste disposal procedures identified in the Material Safety Data Sheets and in the Business Emergency Plan. PER Mitigation Measure 3.6-4: Disposal of hazardous waste generated as part of construction or operation activities will occur at a properly permitted facility in accordance with federal and state laws. PER Mitigation Measure 3.6.6: During Project design, a database screening would be completed for listing of all known contamination sites, including contamination associated with leaking underground storage tanks. Additionally, soils sampling would be completed for the presence of TRPH, volatile organics, and metals. In the event of suspected contamination from adjacent land uses, soil sampling would be completed to verify hazardous substances. Under the Sanitation District's standard construction specifications, the Sanitation District and its contractors would comply with all applicable regulatory requirements for the assessment, testing, remediation, removal, and disposal of hazardous wastes/materials. New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. 1108640.1 A-30 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A I. Hydrology and Water Quality Significance Criteria Less Than Potentially Less Than Resource Category/Significance Criteria Significant Sl Mitigant tion Significant NO Impact Impact Mitigation Impact p Incorporated � Would the Project: 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ® ❑ ❑ requirements? 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which pennits have been granted)? 3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ ❑ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ ❑ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site? 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed ❑ ❑ ❑ IR the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 7. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ that would impede or redirect flood flows? 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam., or inundation by seiche, tsunami,or mudflow? 10. Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ PEIR Because construction activities would involve soil disturbance such as excavation and soil stockpiling, the PEIR addressed increased stormwater erosion and sedimentation to surface waters. The use of heavy 1108640.1 A-31 2-72A Newhopa-Placentia Tank Sewer Replacement Appendix A equipment could also result in the addition of petroleum hydrocarbons, oils and grease to stormwater flowing across areas of construction. Construction activities would be limited to the installation of sewer improvements and would have no impact to the underlying groundwater quality. The PEIR also recognized the possible need for construction dewatering activities and the requirement to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations that govern such dischargers. Additionally, the PER determined that operation of the proposed sewer improvements would have no impact to the quality of surface water or groundwater. PEIR mitigation measures 3.7-1, 3.7-2, and 3.7-3 were identified to reduce potentially significant hydrology and water quality impacts to a less than significant level. Checklist Review Would the Project: 1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed Project would be limited to short-term construction-related erosion and sedimentation. Because the proposed Project involves the replacement of an underground sewer pipeline, no potential long-term impacts to water quality would result. As required under the NPDES, administered by the RWQCB, a SWPPP would be created for the proposed Project. The plan would address erosion control measures that would be implemented to avoid erosion impacts to exposed soil associated with construction activities. The SWPPP would include a program of BMPs to provide erosion and sediment control and reduce potential impacts to water quality that may result from construction activities. BMPs would be selected to achieve maximum sediment removal and represent the best available technology that is economically achievable and may include, but not be limited to, the following: • Protection of storm drain inlets located within the Project impact footprint and in downstream off- site areas with the use of BMPs acceptable to OCSD, local jurisdictions, and the RWQCB. • Sweeping of dirt and debris from paved streets in the construction zone on a regular basis, particularly before predicted rainfall events. • Proper storage, use, and disposal of construction materials. • Removal of sediment from surface runoff before it leaves the Project site through use of silt fences or other similar devices around the Iaydown area perimeters. • Protection of tracking soil off site through use of a gravel strip or wash facilities at exits from Project Iaydown areas. • Protection or stabilization of stockpiled soils. Mitigation measures 3.7-1 through 3.7-3 identified in the PEIR would be implemented for the Project. Impacts to water quality standards or discharge requirements would be less than significant after implementation of BMPs and mitigation. 2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. The Project would not result in a net increase in impervious surfaces. Groundwater levels below the alignment are historically mapped at 50 or more feet (Ninyo & Moore 2015). Near Fullerton Creek, the historical groundwater levels are reported as 10 feet. Construction of the proposed Project would not result in a depletion of groundwater supplies and operation would not interfere with groundwater recharge. No impacts to groundwater supplies would occur. 1108640.1 A-32 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A 3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? No Impact. The proposed Project would occur within developed areas and within existing collection system righbs of-way and would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. The proposed Project would not affect the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,would not alter the course of a river or stream, and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. Furthermore, the Project alignment would be returned to its original condition following construction. Accordingly, no impacts to drainage patterns resulting in substantial erosion or silting would occur. 4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-site or off-site? No Impact. The proposed Project would occur within developed areas and within existing collection system rights-of-way and would not affect the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, would not alter the course of a river or stream, and would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite. No impacts to drainage resulting in flooding would occur. 5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact. The Project would not result in a net increase in impervious surfaces. The proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. All construction dewatering associated with excavation would be discharged to the sanitary sewer. No impacts regarding substantial or polluted runoff would occur. 6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Refer to response 1.1, which addresses impacts to water quality. PEIR mitigation measures 3.7-1 through 3.7-3 would be implemented. Impacts to water quality would be less than significant after mitigation. 7) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact.The proposed Project does not include housing. No impact would occur. 8) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The proposed Project would occur below ground surface and would not impede or redirect flood flows. The proposed Project does not include the placement of structures or above-ground facilities. No impacts to structures within flood hazard areas would occur. 9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact.The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No impacts regarding the failure of a levee or dam would occur. 1108640.1 A-33 2-72A Newhope-Plaoentia Tiunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A 10) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. At its closest point, the proposed Project alignment is 14 miles from the ocean and would be too far for inundation by tsunami. The Project is not adjacent to steep slopes and would not be subjected to mudflows. No enclosed water bodies are located near the proposed Project. No inundation impacts related to seiche,tsunami or mudflow would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures from the PEIR that would be applicable to the proposed Project include the following: PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.7.1: Prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities for sewer improvements with surface disturbances of 1 acre or more, the Sanitation District (or its designee) will obtain approval from the State Board under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit). This includes submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Board and developing and implementing an SWPPP. For sewer improvements with less than 1 acre of surface disturbances, the Sanitation District (or its designee) will develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan (SWPCP) prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities. The SWPPP or SWPCP will identify potential sources of sediment and other pollutants that could affect the quality of the stormwater discharge, and will specify BMPs to prevent or minimize the introduction of sediment and pollutants into surface waters from a construction site. BMP methods of erosion and sediment control could include straw bales, silt fences, and other control techniques. Monitoring and maintenance requirements will be specified in the SWPPP or SWPCP. PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: Prior to initialing activities within Waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands, the Sanitation District (or its designee) will obtain approved 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Board, 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW, and 404 Permit from USACE. Vehicle maintenance and fueling will be restricted from areas within 50 feet of the bank of a jurisdictional area. Following construction within a jurisdictional area, the affected area will be returned to preconstruclion grade. PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.7-3: Prior to the initiation of construction dewatering activities the Sanitation District (or its designee) will obtain authorization from the Santa Ana RWQCB and will comply with the NPDES Permit No. CAG998001, General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Surface Waters that Pose an Insignificant (De Minimis) Threat to Water Quality, for insignificant discharges to surface water bodies, including but not limited to discharge of dewatered groundwater. Now Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. 1108640.1 A 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A J. Land Use and Planning Significance Criteria Less Than Potentially Less Than Resource Category/Significance Criteria Significant Sl Mitigant tion Significant NO Impact Ira aM Mitigation Impact p Incorporated � Would the Project: 1. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project(including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ❑ ❑ ❑ or natural community conservation plan? PER The PER addressed conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over a project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Land uses along the proposed Project alignment were identified as commercial, industrial, residential and transportation. Mitigation measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-4 were provided to reduce land use impacts and included providing notices of construction to adjacent property owners, coordinating with local officials to maintain 24-hour emergency access, minimizing access to driveways, and use of appropriate signage. Operation and maintenance activities would be minimal and generally include routine maintenance and monitoring activities and would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies or regulations. The proposed Project would continue the existing operation of the collection system, which conforms to applicable zoning and land use plans and policies. Checklist Review Would the Project: 1) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed Project would include the construction of collection system improvements, which would be completed below-ground. All construction would occur within developed areas and within existing collection system rights-of-way and would not physically divide an established community. No impacts regarding the division of an established community would occur. 2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project's alignment would fall within existing collection system rights-of-way. No changes to existing land uses would be required, and no new land uses would be introduced. The purpose of the sewer replacement is to improve the sewer system to better serve existing and future development proposed by the Cities of Fullerton and Anaheim's General 1108640.1 A-35 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A Plans. As discussed in the PER, Project construction activities could impact adjacent property owners, 24-hour emergency access at adjacent fire and police stations and hospitals, and could cause disruption in access to adjacent property owners (including schools). Implementation of PER mitigation measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-4 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The proposed Project is not located within a natural community conservation plan or habitat conservation plan area. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures from the PER that would be applicable to the proposed Project include the following: PER Mitigation Measure 3.8.1: The Sanitation District will provide notices of construction to adjacent property owners, including businesses and places of worship, prior to initiating construction activities. Notices of construction will include a contact and telephone number of Sanitation District staff that can be contacted regarding questions or concerns about construction activities. PER Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: The Sanitation District will coordinate with officials of adjacent fire stations, police stations, and hospitals to ensure that 24-hour emergency access is available. Mitigation Measure 3.8.3:To minimize disruption of access to driveways of adjacent land uses, including schools, during construction, the Sanitation District (or its contractor) will maintain steel trench plates to provide vehicle access across trenches. Mitigation Measure 3.84: To minimize disruption to adjacent businesses during construction, the Sanitation District will provide temporary signage indicating that businesses are open. New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. 1108640.1 A-36 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A K. Mineral Resources Significance Criteria Less Than Potentially Less Than Resource Category/Significance Criteria Significant Sl Mitigant tion Significant NO Impact Impact Mitigation Impact p Incorporated � Would the Project: 1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ® ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? PEIR The Initial Study determined that the Plan and its proposed collection system improvements would be located within developed areas and within existing collection system right-of-ways. No known or locally- important mineral resources would be lost as result of the Plan. The PEIR did not address this resource category. Checklist Review Would the Project: 1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Less Than Significant Impact.According to Chapter 19 of Fullerton's General Plan, the City of Fullerton does not contain any areas designated as Mineral Resource Zones. The portion of the proposed Project alignment within the City of Anaheim is designated as a Mineral Resource Zone for aggregate resources only. Lands within this zone have a high potential for significant mineral deposits. However, the proposed Project would occur within developed areas and within existing collection system rights-of-way, none of which are used or planned for mineral extraction activities. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the stale. Impacts to mineral resources would be less than significant. 2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Less Than Significant Impact.According to Chapter 19 of Fullerton's General Plan, the City of Fullerton does not contain any areas designated as Mineral Resource Zones. The portion of the proposed Project alignment within the City of Anaheim is designated as a Mineral Resource Zone for aggregate resources only. However, the proposed Project would occur within developed areas and within existing collection system rights-of-way, none of which are used or planned for mineral extraction activities. The proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource recovery site. Impacts to locally- important mineral resource recovery sites would be less than significant. 1108640.1 A-37 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Tank Sewer Replacement Appendix A Mitigation Measures The proposed Project would not result in potentially significant impacts associated with mineral resources and no mitigation is required. New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. L. Noise Significance Criteria Lass Than Potentially Less Than Resource category lSignificance Criteria Significant Sl Mitigant tion Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Impact Would the Project: 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ ® ❑ ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ❑ ❑ E ❑ ground-bome vibration or ground-borne noise levels? 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑ E levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ E ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? 5. For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ E where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? 6. For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ E would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? PER The PER addressed construction and operational noise generation and vibration. Operational noise impacts would not generate noise levels above ambient traffic conditions due to local traffic and were less than significant. During construction of the proposed Project, trench excavation, sewer pipe installation, paving activities and construction-related truck trips would generate temporary noise levels in the immediate area that would reach 85 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at the nearest locations. Nonetheless, construction noise would be temporary, intermittent, and variable in magnitude. Construction activities would only occur during times allowed by the Anaheim and Fullerton noise ordinances (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. in Anaheim, and 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, and 1108640.1 A-38 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Tank Sewer Replacement Appendix A at no time on Sunday or City-recognized holidays in Fullerton). Mitigation measure 3.9-1 required compliance with applicable codes of local jurisdiction, noise monitoring and reporting, and use of noise reduction measures. Ground-bome vibrations may also affect the areas located along sewer improvement alignments; though vibrations associated with construction activities would be intermittent. Perceptible vibrations would be typically felt within 10 or 15 feet of the construction activity. PER mitigation measure 3.9-2 requires that during Project-level review, specific areas susceptible to ground-bome vibration be identified and appropriate safeguards employed. While implementation of the mitigation measures would be effective, the PER concluded that in some instances construction-related noise impacts could be disruptive and could conflict with city noise ordinances, resulting in a significant unavoidable construction-related noise impact. Checklist Review The analysis below is provided based on an Acoustical Analysis Report for the Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project(HELIX 2015d),attached as Appendix E. Would the Project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project is located within the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton. Section 6.70.010 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code stales that no person shall generate a noise level in excess of 60 dBA "at any point on the property line." However, the code exempts sound created by construction or building repair of any premises from the application of Chapter 6.70 during the hours of 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. The City of Fullerton Municipal Code establishes exterior noise standards for a residence, school, hospital, residential care facility for the elderly, or religious institution to be 55 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 45 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. However, the City of Fullerton Municipal Code exempts noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property from these noise level standards between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday ore City of Fullerton-recognized holiday. Construction activities would result in noise associated with open trench construction activities,jack and bore activities, staging of construction equipment and materials, and construction traffic. Noise associated with each of these activities is summarized below. Open-cut Trench Construction Open-cut trenching would be performed along most of the Project alignment. Noise sensitive land uses (NSLUs) would be located along much of the alignment where trenching would occur. These NSLUs include: • Residences (including single- and multi-family residential and mobile homes), with the closest residence approximately 50 feet from trenching; • Schools (a high school, law school, and Cal State Fullerton), with the closest school approximately 50 feet from trenching; • Churches,with the closest church approximately 275 feet from trenching;and • Sensitive habitat for nesting raptors (eucalyptus woodland), located approximately 100 feet from trenching. 1108640.1 A-39 2-72A Newhope-Plaoentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A The loudest noise from trenching would be generated from an excavator digging the trench and a dump truck loading and hauling the excavated material. As a reasonable worst-case scenario, the two pieces of equipment were assumed to be operating simultaneously for 40 percent of an 8-hour construction day. At a distance of 50 feet, the excavator and dump truck were modeled to generate a noise level of 78 dBA hourly average (Lao)with a 75 dBA LEG noise contour of 75 feet. At a distance of 100 feet,these pieces of equipment were modeled to generate a noise level of 72dBA Lao with a 60 dBA LEG noise contour of 400 feet.At 275 feet, these pieces of equipment were modeled to generate a noise level of 63 dBA LEG. Construction noise within the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton is exempt from noise standards if conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (except Sundays and holidays), respectively. As the proposed Project would only conduct construction activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during non-holiday weekdays (incorporated into Project design per PEIR mitigation measure 3.9-1), the noise levels generated from open-cut trenching would not exceed standards established in the local noise ordinances. However, open-cut trenching activities would generate noise levels in excess of the 60 dBA LEG threshold if performed within 400 feet of sensitive habitat during the general bird nesting season for migratory birds and raptors (January 15 through September 15). Construction for the Project would take place within 100 feet of eucalyptus woodland, determined to be sensitive habitat by the Project Biological Resources Letter Report(HELIX 2015b). However, implementation of PEIR mitigation measure 3.3-1 would ensure impacts would remain less than significant. Jack-and-Bore Pit Construction There would be two jacking pits: one located just south of SR-91 within the median (southern jacking pit) and one located at the Orange County Flood Control Channel Crossing (northern jacking pit). The NSLUs nearest to the southern jacking pit would be mobile homes to the east and single-family residences to the west, both located approximately 50 feet from the pit. As the northern jacking pit would be located in the middle of the industrial and commercial area on State College Boulevard, the nearest NSLUs would be single-family residences located approximately 1,700 feet to the southwest. Jack-and-bore pit construction would not be conducted near sensitive habitat. Prior to work within the pit, an excavator with a drill attached would install soldier pilings to reinforce the pit. The jacking pits would then be dug with an excavator and a dump truck. As a reasonable worst-case scenario, the two pieces of equipment were assumed to operate simultaneously and to be operating for 40 percent of an 8-hour construction day. At a distance of 50 feet, these pieces of equipment were modeled to generate a noise level of 78 dBA LEG with a 75 dBA LEG noise contour of 75 feet. At 1,700 feet,the excavator and dump truck were modeled to generate a noise level of 47 dBA LEG. Tunnel boring would occur in the same location as the jacking pits. The horizontal auger would be run with either a diesel-powered motor or an electric-powered motor. The diesel-powered motor would be operated fully within the jacking pit: therefore, it would not generate significant noise outside of the pit. The electric-powered motor would require a generator outside of the pit that would generate noise. As a reasonable worst-case scenario, the generator was assumed to operate for 50 percent of an 8-hour construction day. At a distance of 50 feet, the generator was modeled to generate a noise level of 70 dBA LEG with a 75 dBA LEG noise contour of 28 feel. At 1,700 feet, the generator was modeled to generate a noise level of 39 dBA LEG. Construction noise within the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton is exempt from noise standards if conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (except Sundays and holidays), respectively. As the proposed Project would only conduct construction activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during non-holiday weekdays (incorporated into Project design per PEIR mitigation measure 3.9-1), the noise levels generated from jack-and-bore construction would not exceed standards established in the local noise ordinances. 1108640.1 A40 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Tiunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A PEIR mitigation measure 3.9-1 states that to "minimize noise disruption during construction, stationary noise generating equipment such as generators could be placed within the jacking pits where possible to reduce noise during construction." As generator noise would not violate local standards, use of a generator within the jacking pit would not be required (although it may still be implemented). Therefore, impacts from jack-and-bore construction would be less than significant. Stacinc Storage piles would potentially be located at the northern and southern staging locations and would be used as temporary placement for soil and other material. A single-family residence, a church, and sensitive habitat would be located approximately 125, 150, and 30 feet north of the northern staging location. Single-family residences would be located approximately 1,700 feet southeast of the southern staging location. The loudest noise from storage pile-related construction activities would be a dump truck and a crane to unload and load materials. The dump trucks were assumed to be operating for 40 percent of an 8-hour construction day,while the cranes were assumed to be operating for 16 percent of an 8-hour construction day. These pieces of equipment would generate a noise level of 80 dBA LEo at 30 feet, 68 dBA Leo at 125 feet, 66 dBA LEo at 150 feet, and 45 dBA LEo at 1,700 feet. The 60 dBA LEo noise contour would be 300 feet. Construction noise within the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton is exempt from noise standards if conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (except Sundays and holidays), respectively. As the proposed Project would only conduct construction activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during non-holiday weekdays (incorporated into Project design per PEIR mitigation measure 3.9-1), the noise levels generated from construction staging would not exceed standards established in the local noise ordinances. However, construction staging activities would generate noise levels in excess of the 60 dBA LEo threshold if performed within 300 feet of sensitive habitat during the general bird nesting season (January 15 through September 15). As northern construction staging activities would take place within 100 feet of eucalyptus woodland, determined to be sensitive habitat by the Project Biological Resources Letter Report (HELIX 2015b), implementation of PEIR mitigation measure 3.3-1 would ensure impacts would remain less than significant. Construction Traffic Project construction traffic would mostly consist of workers arriving to and leaving from the Project areas. These workers would likely use various roadways in the surrounding area. The City of Fullerton's General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR; City of Fullerton 2012) describes overall traffic numbers for the "Education: Focus Area; which encompasses the Cal State Fullerton campus area and surrounding roadways.The General Plan traffic number for the focus area is 29,754 average daily trips(ADT). A general rule of thumb is that a doubling of ADT would cause a doubling in noise (a 3 dBA increase), which would be considered a significant increase. The Project would generate nine truck trips per day associated with material delivery and spoils removal, plus trips associated with construction worker's vehicles, at each of the two proposed construction locations, which would increase area traffic by less than one percent. Therefore, the increase in traffic from the Project would have a negligible impact on noise and impacts from construction traffic would be less than significant. 2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. An excavator would be expected to create the highest vibration levels during open-cut trench construction. Per Caltrans guidance, an excavator is expected to generate 1108640.1 A41 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A vibration levels of 0.089 PPV in/s at 25 feet.The closest vibration-sensitive land use from trenching would be schools (Cal State University Fullerton, La Vista High School, and Western State College of Law) and multi- and single-family residential, located at a distance of approximately 50 feet. Therefore, as the excavator's vibration would be below the criterion of 0.4 PPV in/s at 25 feet, no areas susceptible to ground-borne vibration would have significant impacts at 50 feet. An excavator would also be expected to create the highest vibration levels during jack-and-bore construction. As discussed above, an excavator is expected to generate vibration levels of 0.089 PPV in/s at 25 feet. The closest vibration-sensitive land use from jacking and receiving pits would be single-family residential and mobile homes, located at a distance of approximately 50 feet. Therefore, as the excavator's vibration would be below the criterion of 0.4 PPV in/s at 25 feet, no areas susceptible to ground-borne vibration would have significant impacts at 50 feet. A horizontal auger would be expected to create the highest vibration levels during tunnel boring, with expected vibration levels of 0.089 PPV in/s at 25 feet.The closest vibration-sensitive land use from tunnel boring would be single-family residential and mobile homes, located at a distance of approximately 50 feet. Therefore, as the horizontal auger's vibration would be below the criterion of 0.4 PPV in/s at 25 feet, no areas susceptible to ground-borne vibration would have significant impacts at 50 feet. PER mitigation measure 3.9-2 requires Project level review to identify specific areas susceptible to groundborne vibration impacts. As demonstrated in the above discussion, the Project would not result in significant impacts associated with groundborne vibration. Impacts would be less than significant. 3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? No Impact. Project-related noise generation would be primarily limited to short-term construction activities. Pipeline facilities,once installed, are passive and do not generate significant noise.Therefore, a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels would not be expected from the Project and no impacts would occur. 4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As noted above under Item L.1, construction activities would temporarily increase noise levels above existing ambient noise levels. Construction noise would vary with the particular construction stage in progress due to the different pieces of construction equipment being used. Incorporation of PER mitigation measure 3.9-1, as described in response to Item L.1, would ensure that temporary construction-related increases in ambient noise levels would be less than significant. 5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed Project would not result in the exposure of workers to excessive airport noise levels. The nearest airport, Fullerton Municipal Airport, is five miles east of the proposed Project. No impact would occur. 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact.There are no private airports within two miles of the Project site. No impact would occur. 1108640.1 A42 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures from the PER that would be applicable to the proposed Project include the following: Mitigation Measure 3.9-1: To minimize noise disruption during construction, construction activities will generally be scheduled to occur during times allowed by applicable codes, noise ordinances, or permits. Additionally, the following mitigations could be implemented as required: • Noise reduction measures such as sound blankets or temporary sound walls could be used to reduce noise generation from stationary noise generating equipment during construction. • Stationary noise generating equipment such as generators could be placed within the jacking pits where possible to reduce noise during construction. • Pile driving activities or other particularly disruptive construction could be limited to specific times agreed to with agencies of jurisdiction or adjacent property owners prior to construction. • Where appropriate, noise monitoring at the closest sensitive receptors could be conducted and reports submitted to the city of jurisdiction. New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. M. Population and Housing Significance Criteria Potentially Less Than ass Than Resource Category/Significance Criteria Significant SlgnNlcantwlth Significant No Impact ncorporated Im act Mitigation Imp act p I Would the Project: 1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ❑ ❑ ® ❑ directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ ED the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? PER The Plan was developed to accommodate planned growth within OCSD's services area and provide beneficial improvements to regional wastewater conveyance facilities. The PER determined that proposed improvements associated with sewer capacity deficiencies, such as the proposed Project, would accommodate planned growth and reduce surcharging in sewers. The Plan would accommodate 1108640.1 A43 2-72A Newhopa-Placentia Tank Sewer Replacement Appendix A planned growth but would not induce growth. The PEIR concluded that significant growth inducing impacts would not occur. Checklist Review Would the Project: 1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is part of the OCSD's CIP and is a part of collection system improvements identified in the OCSD's April 2006 Strategic Plan Update, which included capacity analysis of the trunk sewer system. In particular, the proposed collection system improvements were identified to address existing and projected deficiencies in the regional trunk sewer system. The proposed Project would replace existing sewer lines to increase capacity of sewage flows. Existing flows are currently being diverted (pumped) into the Santa Ana River due to inefficient existing capacity. The proposed Project would handle projected future flows due to planned and proposed developments near CSUF and land use changes in the Anaheim Platinum Triangle. The pipeline upsizing would also help handle flows due to the future abandonment of the Yorba Linda Pump Station and incorporate flows from other OCSD trunk lines. The proposed Project would be constructed to accommodate current development and growth patterns. Indirect impacts to population growth due to the extension of infrastructure would be less than significant. 2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed Project would have no impact associated with displacing existing housing or necessitating the construction of replacement housing. 3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed Project would have no impact associated with displacing people or necessitating the construction of replacement housing. Mitigation Measures No new mitigation measures for population and housing are proposed and none are identified in the PEIR. New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. 1108640.1 A-0 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A N. Public Services Significance Criteria Less Than Potentially Less Than Resource Category/Significance Criteria Significant Sl Mitigant tion Significant NO Impact Impact Mitigation Impact p Incorporated � Would the Project: 1. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts ❑ ® ❑ ❑ associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c.Schools? d. Parks? e. Electric power or natural gas? f.Communication? g.Other public facilities? PEIR The PEIR addressed potential impacts to fire, police and emergency medical services from construction of the proposed sewer improvement projects. Construction of the improvement projects could increase response times during emergencies; however, coordination with fire stations and emergency medical facilities would occur to ensure emergency vehicle access is maintained. Potential hazards could also occur if persons enter construction areas. Utility lines would be protected or relocated during construction limiting possible impacts to utilities. Mitigation measures 3.11-1 through 3.11-7 identified in the PEIR require a development and implementation of a traffic control plan, advance notice to service providers, construction site controls, and measures to identify and protect utilities during excavation. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Checklist Review Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: • Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project could result in temporary construction impacts associated with the disruption of fire services. Two fire stations are located within one mile of the proposed Project alignment. State College Boulevard is a major road in the 1108640.1 A45 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A cities of Anaheim and Fullerton, and functions as a connection for fire services to access neighboring communities. To ensure adequate fire services remain in place, mitigation measures 3.11-1 and 3.11-2 from the PER would be implemented. Due to the nature of the proposed Project, no new fire stations would be required. Impacts to fire services would be less than significant after mitigation. • Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project could result in temporary construction impacts associated with the disruption of police services. California State University Fullerton Police Services are located on the university campus adjacent to the proposed Project alignment on North State College Boulevard. State College Boulevard is a major road in the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton, and functions as a connection for police services to access neighboring communities. To ensure adequate police services remain in place, mitigation measures 3.11-1 and 3.11-2 from the PER would be implemented. Due to the nature of the proposed Project, no new police stations would be required. Impacts to fire services would be less than significant after mitigation. • Schools? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation.The California State University Fullerton campus is located adjacent to the proposed Project alignment on North State College Boulevard. Troy High School is a school within the Fullerton Joint Union High School District and is located adjacent to the proposed Project. Other schools within the vicinity of the sewer alignment include public elementary and middle schools. Due to the nature of the proposed Project, no existing schools would be physically altered, and no new schools would be required. Construction impacts regarding road accessibility would be temporary, but emergency services would be maintained with implementation of mitigation measures 3.11-1 and 3.11-2 from the PER. Impacts to school services would be less than significant with mitigation. • Parks? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Acacia Park is located at the northern end of State College Boulevard,directly adjacent to proposed Project alignment. Due to the nature of the proposed Project, no existing parks would be physically altered, and no new parks would be required. Construction impacts regarding road accessibility would be temporary, but emergency services would be maintained with implementation of mitigation measures 3.11-1 and 3.11-2 from the PER Impacts to parks would be less than significant with mitigation. • Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project could result in temporary construction impacts associated with disruption of fire and emergency services. To ensure that construction does not significantly affect public facilities, mitigation measures 3.11-1 through 3.11-7 from the PER would be implemented. Impacts to public services would be less than significant after mitigation. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures from the PER that would be applicable to the proposed Project include the following: PER Mitigation Measure 3.11.1: The contractor will provide a copy of the Traffic Control Plan to the Sheriffs department, local police departments, and fire departments prior to construction. The Sanitation 1108640.1 A46 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A District will provide 72-hour notice of construction to the local service providers of individual pipeline segments. PER Mitigation Measure 3.11-2: Access to fire stations and emergency medical facilities will be maintained on a 24-hour basis and at least one access to medical facilities will be available at all times during construction. The Sanitation District will notify appropriate officials at the medical facility regarding construction schedule. PER Mitigation Measure 3.11.3a: Construction areas will be secured or trenches will be promptly backfilled after pipeline installation. If installation is incomplete, steel trench plates will be used to cover open trenches as appropriate for the specific site. PER Mitigation Measure 3.11.3b: Construction contractors will ensure that adequate barriers are established to prevent pedestrians from entering the open trenches of an active construction area. Warnings will be posted sufficient distances from the work area to allow pedestrians to cross the street at controlled intersections. PER Mitigation Measure 3.11.3c: To ensure aesthetic consistency and public safety, construction contractors will restore disturbed areas along the alignment as mutually agreed by the Sanitation District and local jurisdictions prior to construction. PER Mitigation Measure 3.11.4: Construction contractors will be responsible for providing appropriate security measures for all equipment staging and/or storage areas needed for sewer improvement projects. PER Mitigation Measure 3.11-5a: Construction contractors will dispose of construction refuse at approved disposal locations. Contractors will not be permitted to dispose of construction debris in residential or business containers. PER Mitigation Measure 3.115b: Construction contractors will be required to keep construction and staging areas orderly, free of trash and debris. PER Mitigation Measure 3.11-6a: A detailed study identifying utilities along the pipeline routes will be conducted during the design stages of sewer improvement projects. For segments with potential adverse impacts,the following mitigations will be implemented. • Utility excavation or encroachment permits will be required from the appropriate agencies. These permits include measures to minimize utility disruption. The Sanitation District and its contractors will comply with permit conditions, and such conditions will be included in construction contract specifications. • Utility locations will be verified through field surveys. • Detailed specifications will be prepared as part of the design plans to include procedures for the excavation, support, and fill of areas around utility cables and pipes. All affected utility services will be notified of Sanitation District construction plans and schedule. Arrangements will be made with these entities regarding protection, relocation, or temporary disconnection of services. PER Mitigation Measure 3.11-6b: To reduce potential impacts associated with utility conflicts, the following measures will be implemented in conjunction with 3.11-6a. • Disconnected cables and lines will be promptly reconnected. 1108640.1 A47 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Tank Sewer Replacement Appendix A • The Sanitation District will observe Department of Health and Safety (DHS) standards, which require a 10-foot-horizontal separation between parallel sewer and water mains and 1-foot vertical separation between perpendicular water and sewer line crossings. In the event that the separation requirements cannot be maintained, the Sanitation District will obtain DHS variance through provisions of water encasement, or other means deemed suitable by DHS, and by encasing water mains in protective sleeves where a new sewer force main crosses under or over an existing sewer main. PER Mitigation Measure 3.11.6c: The construction contractor will comply with the Sanitation District requirements and specifications to protect existing utility lines. PER Mitigation Measure 3.11.7: The Sanitation District will coordinate with the Orange County Resources and Development Management Department (RDMD) and other jurisdictions as required to ensure compatibility and joint-use feasibility with existing and future projects. New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. O. Recreation Significance Criteria Less Than Potentially Less Than SIHlnarH withResource Category I Significance Criteria Significant gn Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Ira ct p Incorporated Would the Project: 1. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional ❑ ❑ ❑ parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2. Include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? PER The Initial Study for the Plan determined no significant recreational impacts would occur. Accordingly, the PER did not address this resource category. Checklist Review 1) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. 2) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1108640.1 A48 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A No Impact. The proposed Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures No new mitigation measures for recreation are proposed. New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. P.Transportation/Traffic Significance Criteria Lass Than Potengaay Less Than Resource Category/Significance Criteria Significant Sl Mitigant tion Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Impact Would the Project: 1. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in ❑ ® ❑ ❑ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 2. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safely risks? 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? 5. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 6. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ® ❑ ❑ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? PEIR The PEIR analyzed the traffic impacts associated with the various construction methods for the collection system improvement projects, noting that limited lane closures would be anticipated, impacts to circulation routes would be short term, and affected roadways would be restored to fully operational conditions. Construction activities for the proposed Project, as identified in the PEIR, would include up to 1,655 truck trips, with 23 daily trips. In addition, limited road closures and lane closures would also occur; however, sufficient lane widths would be able to accommodate trench construction. Mitigation 1108640.1 A49 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Tank Sewer Replacement Appendix A measures 3.12-1a through 3.12-1k and 3.12-2a through 3.12-2f were provided to address traffic issues and require implementation of approved traffic control plans and compliance with encroachment permit conditions issued by the appropriate local jurisdiction. The PEIR concluded that even with implementation of available mitigation measures, construction-related transportation and traffic impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Checklist Review Would the Project: 1) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation.The proposed Project does not include components that would result in a noticeable increase in long-term traffic. Long-term operational traffic would be limited to occasional truck trips associated with maintenance and would be the same as the current condition. Project construction would result in the generation of truck trips in the Project vicinity associated with the delivery of equipment and materials, as well as worker's vehicles. Each of the two construction locations are estimated to have nine truck trips per day associated with material delivery and spoils removal, plus trips associated with construction worker's vehicles. While the number of truck trips associated with the proposed Project is not substantial given the daily number of traffic trips on State College Boulevard and Yorba Linda Boulevard, both of these roadways are classified as Major Arterial Highways by the City of Fullerton (City of Fullerton 2012). As discussed in the Project description, construction activities would require lane closures in segments of 800 to 1,000 feet, and would only occur along Yorba Linda Boulevard and along State College Boulevard between Nutwood Avenue and Dorothy Lane when CSUF is not in session. Lane closures along the remaining portion of State College Boulevard would could occur anytime during the construction period. Temporary closures along these major thoroughfares would result in a potentially significant impact on the circulation system. Implementation of PEIR mitigation measures 3.12-1a through 3.12-k and 3.12-2a and 3.12-2f would be required. 2) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Refer to response PA above. Implementation of PEIR mitigation measures 3.12-la through 3.12-k and 3.12-2a and 3.12-2f would be required during construction of the proposed Project to reduce traffic impacts during construction. 3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed Project would not include aviation components or structures where height would be an aviation concern and, therefore, would not affect air traffic patterns. No impact would occur. 4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? No Impact. The proposed Project includes the replacement of existing sewer utilities. There are no changes proposed to the design of the roads. The proposed Project would not include design features that would affect traffic safety, nor would it cause incompatible uses (such as tractors) on local roads. There would be no increase in hazards associated with design feature and no impact would occur. 1108640.1 A-50 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Tiunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A 5) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed Project would not significantly impact current or future emergency access to the community. Emergency access routes to all parts of the surrounding community would be maintained during the temporary construction phase of the Project. Construction activities would require closures along 800- to 1,000-foot segments of Yorba Linda Boulevard and State College Boulevard at any given time. Lane closures along Yorba Linda Boulevard and along State College Boulevard between Nutwood Avenue and Dorothy Lane would only occur when CSUF is not in session. As discussed in response to Item N, construction impacts regarding road accessibility would be temporary, but emergency services would be maintained with implementation of mitigation measures 3.11-1 and 3.11-2 from the PER.The proposed Project would not result in long-term negative effects to emergency access. Impacts to would be less than significant with PER mitigation. 6) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project does not include land uses which would require the use of or benefit from alternative transportation, as no residential or employment-generating uses are proposed. Users of bus stops along the Project alignment could be temporarily inconvenienced as a result of Project construction activities. Project roadways would remain open to traffic, including modes of alternative transportation. A traffic control plan, as required by PEIR mitigation measure 3.12-1a would be prepared for the Project. Additional mitigation measures from the PER, including 3.12-1b through 3.12-1j would also be implemented and would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures from the PER would be applicable to the proposed Project: PER Mitigation Measure 3.12-1a: Traffic control plans will be prepared by a qualified professional engineer as required prior to the construction phase of each sewer line project. PER Mitigation Measure 3.12-1b: Traffic control plans will consider the ability of alternative routes to carry additional traffic and will identify the least disruptive hours for access routes to the construction site, and the type and location of warning signs, lights, and other traffic control devices. Consideration will be given to maintaining access to commercial parking lots, private driveways, sidewalks, bikeways, and equestrian trails to the greatest extent feasible. PER Mitigation Measure 3.12.1c: Encroachment permits for all work within public rights-of-way will be obtained from each appropriate agency prior to commencement of any construction. Agencies could include Caltrans, RDMD, and the various city agencies where work will occur. The Sanitation District will comply with traffic control requirements, as identified by Caltrans and the affected local jurisdictions. PER Mitigation Measure 3.12.1d: Traffic control plans will comply with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and/or the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as determined by each affected local agency,to minimize any traffic and pedestrian hazards that exist during Project construction. PER Mitigation Measure 3.12-1e: Public roadways will be restored to their existing condition after Project construction is completed. PER Mitigation Measure 3.12.1f: The Sanitation District will attempt to schedule construction of relief facilities to occur jointly with other public works projects already planned in the affected locations through careful coordination with all local agencies involved. PER Mitigation Measure 3.12-1g: Emergency service purveyors will be contacted and consulted to preclude the creation of unnecessary traffic bottlenecks that will seriously impede response limes. 1108640.1 A-51 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A Additionally, measures to provide an adequate level of access to private properties will be maintained to allow delivery of emergency services. PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-1 h: OCTA will be contacted when construction affects roadways that are part of the OCTA bus transit network. Adequate procedures will be implemented to keep bus routes and stations accessible to users. PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12.11: Construction traffic, mainly trucks, will be routed in a way to minimize impacts to sensitive neighborhoods. In addition, storage and staging of materials and equipment will be done after obtaining a Temporary Use Permit,when needed. PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-1j: An effort will be made to solicit input from residents in the neighborhoods of the proposed improvements. These inputs will be considered in the planning phase through construction to mitigate the resident's concerns. PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12.1k: For sewer improvements that occur within railroad rights-of-way, the Sanitation District will follow the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) procedures for right-of-way encroachment—SCRRA Form No. 36. The procedures for temporary encroachment calls for: (1)the submittal of a written statement on the reason and location of the encroachment; (2) a completed and executed SCRRA Form No. 6, Right-of- Entry Agreement; (3) plan check, inspection, and flagging fees; and (4) insurance certificates as described in the Right-of-Entry Agreement. Per SCRRA Form No.6, the Sanitation District must comply with the rules and regulations of this agreement at all times when working on SCRRA property, including those outlines in the "Rules and Requirements for Construction at Railway Property, SCRRA Form No. 37" and "General Safety Regulations for Construction/Maintenance Activity on Railway Property." PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-2a: Where lane closures are necessary for construction of sewer improvement projects, all construction equipment will be staged within the closed lanes or in staging areas out of city streets. PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-2b: Where lane or road closures are necessary for construction of sewer improvement projects, adequate signage will be provided informing local residents and business-owners of construction activities prior to commencement of construction activities. PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-2c: Where lane or road closures are necessary for construction of sewer improvement projects, cones and/or traffic guards will be employed to clearly indicate the locations and directions of temporarily altered traffic lanes. PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-2d: The construction technique for the implementation of the proposed sewer lines, such as tunneling, cut-and-cover with partial street closure, or cut and-cover with full street closure, will include consideration of the ability of the roadway system, both the street in question and alternate routes, to carry existing traffic volumes during Project construction. If necessary, adjacent parallel streets will be selected as alternate alignments for the proposed sewer improvements. As required by local jurisdictions, trunk sewers will be jacked under select major intersections to avoid traffic disruption and congestion. PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-2e: Public streets generally will be kept operational during construction, particularly in the morning and evening peak hours of traffic. Lane closures will be minimized during peak traffic hours. PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-2f: Where road closures are necessary for construction of sewer improvement projects, signage will be posted informing motorists of road closures and delineating suitable detours both prior to and during the duration of construction activities. Prior to initiating a road closure, coordination will occur with local jurisdictions, including Caltrans. 1108640.1 A-52 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. Q. Utilities and Service Systems Significance Criteria Potentially Lee.Than Significant with Less Than Resource Category/Significance Criteria Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impart Incorporated Impact Would the Project: 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2. Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 3. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater ❑ ❑ ❑ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 5. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ IR provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity ❑ ❑ ® ❑ to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? 7. Comply with federal, state, and local statues and ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid waste? PEIR The PEIR determined that impacts to utilities and service systems would not occur. The collection system improvements are specific to existing and projected deficiencies and would not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities nor impact existing supplies and utilities. Impacts related to solid waste disposal would be less than significant as small amounts of debris or solid waste is not anticipated to affect the capacity of existing landfills. The PEIR did not address this resource category. 1108640.1 A-53 2-72A Newhope-Plaoentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A Checklist Review Would the Project: 1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The proposed Project is part of the Sanitation District's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and is a part of collection system improvements identified in the Sanitation District's April 2006 Strategic Plan Update, which included capacity analysis of the trunk sewer system. In particular, the proposed collection system improvements were identified to address existing and projected deficiencies in the regional trunk sewer system. Because the proposed Project is specific to existing and projected deficiencies in the regional trunk sewer system, it would not result in an unanticipated increase in the Sanitation District's treatment capacity. The Project is planned for and has been sized to accommodate future flows from the College Town development at CSUF, continued Anaheim Platinum Triangle land use changes, future abandonment of the Yorba Linda Pump Station, and diversion of flows to incorporate flows from other OCSD trunk lines during dry weather operation. No impacts to wastewater treatment requirements would occur. 2) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The proposed Project is part of the OCSD's CIP and is a part of collection system improvements identified in the OCSD's April 2006 Strategic Plan Update, which included capacity analysis of the trunk sewer system. In particular, the proposed collection system improvements were identified to address existing and projected deficiencies in the regional trunk sewer system. Because the proposed Project is specific to existing and projected deficiencies in the regional trunk sewer system, it would not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities above what is included in the proposed Project. No impacts to water or wastewater facilities would occur. 3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. No new or expansion of existing of existing storm water drainage facilities would result or be required as part of the proposed Project. 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The proposed Project would not require the provision of new water supplies. Water entitlements and resources would not be impacted by the proposed Project. No impacts to water supplies would occur. 5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The proposed Project is part of the OCSD's CIP and is a part of collection system improvements identified in the OCSD's April 2006 Strategic Plan Update, which included capacity analysis of the trunk sewer system. In particular, the proposed collection system improvements were identified to address existing and projected deficiencies in the regional trunk sewer system. Because the proposed Project is specific to existing and projected deficiencies in the regional trunk sewer system, it would not result in an impact associated with wastewater treatment capacity. No impacts to wastewater capacity due to projected demand would occur. 1108640.1 A-54 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Tank Sewer Replacement Appendix A 6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. Debris and solid waste may be generated during construction of the proposed Project and would be transported to an approved solid waste disposal facility. Based on the small quantity of material, the proposed Project is not expected to affect the capacity of existing landfills. Impacts to landfill capacity would be less than significant. 7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. Solid waste produced by the proposed Project would be disposed of at a properly permitted facility in accordance with federal and state laws. Mitigation Measures No new mitigation measures for utilities and service systems are proposed and none are identified in the PER New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. R. Mandatory Findings of Significance Significance Criteria Potentlall Less Than Less Than Resource CategorylSignigcance Criteria Signigean, Significant with Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Impact Would the Project: 1. Does the Project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 2. Does the Project have impacts that are individually ❑ ® ❑ ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? 3. Does the Project have environmental effects which ❑ ® ❑ ❑ would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? 1108640.1 A-55 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A PEIR The PEIR determined that rehabilitation of the NHP Trunk Sewer Project would not have biological or cultural resource impacts. The PEIR concluded that construction-related noise and construction-related road closures would be significant and unavoidable, and these conclusions would remain in the content of reasonably foreseeable future projects identified for the study area. Construction mitigation measures would reduce adverse effects to human beings to less than significant levels. Checklist Review The proposed Project is consistent with the project analyzed in the PEIR. Construction measures included in the PEIR would be used to mitigate Project impacts. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are identified in the respective sections of this Initial Study Checklist. New Environmental Effects No new environmental effects would occur. 1108640.1 A-56 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Appendix A References Caltrans 2015 California Scenic Highway Mapping System website. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hg/LandArch/scenic highways/. Site accessed July 16, 2015. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection 2012 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Orange County Important Farmland. Available at: htto://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/county info.asox. City of Fullerton 2012 The Fullerton Plan. May 1. HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) 2015a Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report. July. 20151b Biological Resources Letter Report for the Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project. September 25. 2015c Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project — Cultural Resources Study. September 25. 2015d Acoustical Analysis Report for the Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project. July 13. Ninyo& Moore 2015 Technical Memorandum 4, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement. February 6. Orange County Sanitation District 2007 Program Environmental Impact Report, Collection System Improvement Plan. SCH No. 2006101018. Prepared by Integrated Program Management Systems(IPMS). March. South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) 2015 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March. Available at: htto://www.acimd.aov/dots/default-source/ceaa/handbook/scacimd-air-civality-significance- thresholds.pdf?sfvmn=2 2009 Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds Look-up Tables. October. Available at: htto://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/cega/handbwk/localized-sig nitcance- thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rale-Ist-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvmn=2 2008 Draft Guidance Document — Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds. October 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook(as amended). 1108640.1 A-57 2-72A Newhope-Placentia Tank Sewer Replacement Appendix A THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1108640.1 A-58 APPENDIX B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report HELIX Environmental Planning Orange County Sanitation District Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project 2-72A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report July 2015 Prepared for: Prepared by: Orange County Sanitation District HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 10844 Ellis Avenue 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Fountain Valley,CA 92708 La Mesa,CA 91942 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Orange County Sanitation District Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project 2-72A Orange County Prepared for: Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning,Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 July 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS No. Title Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................ES-1 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Description..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Location......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Characterisitcs ............................................................................................... 1 1.3.1 Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer.................................................................. 1 1.3.2 Wastewater Disposal Company Sewer..........................................................2 1.4 Construction Activities..............................................................................................2 1.4.1 Construction Activities.................................................................................. 2 1.4.2 Construction Equipment................................................................................ 3 1.4.3 Construction Schedule................................................................................... 3 1.4.4 Program Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures....................... 3 2.0 REGULATORY SETTING.............................................................................................5 2.1 Criteria Pollutants...................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Pollutants of Concent..................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Federal Clean Air Act....................................................................................6 2.1.3 California Clean Air Act................................................................................ 8 2.1.4 South Coast Air Quality Management District.............................................. 9 2.2 Toxic Air Contaminants.............................................................................................9 2.3 Greenhouse Gases.................................................................................................... 10 2.3.1 Climate Change Overview........................................................................... 10 2.3.2 Types of Greenhouse Gases......................................................................... 11 2.3.3 Federal GHG Regulations............................................................................ 12 2.3.4 State GHG Regulations................................................................................ 13 2.3.5 South Coast Air Quality Management District GHG Regulations.............. 15 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................ 16 3.1 Climate and Meteorology........................................................................................ 16 3.2 Existing Air Quality................................................................................................. 16 3.2.1 Criteria Pollutants........................................................................................ 16 3.2.2 Toxic Air Contaminants............................................................................... 17 3.2.3 Greenhouse Gases........................................................................................ 18 4.0 METHODOLOGY AND THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE.............................. 19 4.1 Methodology............................................................................................................ 19 4.1.1 Construction Emissions ............................................................................... 19 4.1.2 Local Concentrations of Criteria Pollutants From On-site Emissions......... 19 4.2 Significance Criteria................................................................................................20 4.2.1 Air Quality...................................................................................................20 4.2.2 Greenhouse Gases........................................................................................21 i TABLE OF CONTENTS(cont.) No. Title Page 5.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS.........................................................................23 5.1 Consistency with Air Quality Plans.........................................................................23 5.2 Conformance to Federal and State Air Quality Standards.......................................23 5.2.1 Construction.................................................................................................23 5.2.2 Operation......................................................................................................25 5.3 Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Nonattainment Criteria Pollutants.....25 5.4 Impacts to Sensitive Receptors................................................................................25 5.4.1 Criteria Pollutants From On-site Construction............................................25 5.4.2 Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots .......................................................................25 5.4.3 Exposure to TACS.......................................................................................26 5.5 Odors........................................................................................................................26 6.0 GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS...............................................................27 6.1 GHG Emissions .......................................................................................................27 6.1.1 Construction Emissions ...............................................................................27 6.1.2 Operational Emissions.................................................................................27 6.1.3 Summary......................................................................................................27 6.2 Consistency With Local Plans Adopted for The Purpose of Reducing GHG Emissions.................................................................................................................28 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES..........................................................................................29 7.1 Air Quality...............................................................................................................29 7.2 Greenhouse Gases....................................................................................................29 8.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................30 LIST OF APPENDICES A CaIEEMod Output LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Follows Page 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................2 2 Project Alignment(Aerial Photograph)...............................................................................2 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1 California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards.....................................................7 2 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status............................................................................8 3 Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes...................................................12 4 Air Quality Monitoring Data.............................................................................................17 5 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds...............................................................24 6 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions..........................................................................24 7 Maximum Daily Local Construction Emissions................................................................24 8 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions...........................................................................27 9 Estimated Total Annual GHG Emissions..........................................................................28 LIST OF ACRONYMS AB Assembly Bill AQMP Air Quality Management Plan APCD Air Pollution Control District C2176 Hexafluomethane CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CalEEMod California Emission Estimator Model CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board CCR California Code of Regulations CEQ Council for Environmental Quality CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CF4 Tetraflouromethane CFC chlorofluorocarbon CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 methane CNRA California Natural Resources Agency CO carbon monoxide COz carbon dioxide COze CO2-equivalent CSUF California State University, Fullerton DPM diesel particulate matter EO Executive Order F Farenheit GHG greenhouse gases GWP Global Warming Potential HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant HFC hydrofluorocarbon HRA health risk assessment IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRPP Indirect Reuse Replenishment Project Ian kilometer iv LIST OF ACRONYMS(cont.) LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard Lead Pb LOS Level of Service LST localized significance threshold Main Basin Main San Gabriel Basin MATES Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study III MEI maximally exposed individual MM Mitigation Measure MMT million metric tons Mpg miles per gallon mph miles per hour MT metric tons MT CO2e metric tons of CO2 equivalent N2O nitrous oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHP Newhope-Placentia NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratio NO nitrogen oxide NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOx nitrogen oxides Oa ozone OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority Ph lead PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report PFC perfluorocarbon PM particulate matter PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns ppm parts per million ROG reactive organic gases RTP Regional Transportation Plan v LIST OF ACRONYMS(cont.) SB Senate Bill SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCS Sustainable Community Strategy SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SFSG Santa Fe Spreading Grounds SIP State Implementation Plan SJCWRP San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant SO2 sulfur dioxide Sox sulfur oxides SRA source receptor area SR State Route TACs toxic air contaminants URF Unit Risk Factor USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGVMWD Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District VOC volatile organic compounds W WDC Wastewater Disposal Company WRCC Western Regional Climate Center yr year vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents an assessment of potential air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts associated with the proposed Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD or District) Newhope-Placentia (NHP) Trunk Sewer Replacement Project 2-72A (Project). The evaluation addresses the potential for criteria air pollutant and GHG emission impacts during the construction and operation of the Project. The criteria air pollutant analysis is tiered from the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Collection System Improvement Plan (Integrated Program Management Consultants 2007). Since certification of the 2007 PEIR, the California state government has adopted new regulations, policies, and goals to address concerns about global climate change and Appendix G to the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines has been amended on the topic. All analyses have been conducted to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) requirements for air quality assessments to satisfy CEQA requirements. The Project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants and GHGs during construction. Construction emissions include fugitive dust, heavy construction equipment exhaust, and vehicle trips associated with workers commuting to and from the site and trucks hauling soil and materials. Construction activities are assumed to begin June 2016 and require 300 working days. In accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403, fugitive dust control measures including the use of an on-site water truck to water down active grading areas and unpaved and paved roads at least twice daily are incorporated into the Project design. The Project would also comply with following mitigation measures (MM) prescribed in the PEIR for the Collection System Improvement Plan as prepared for the OCSD in March 2007: MM 3.2-la requiring proper maintenance of offroad engines; MM 3.2-lb restricting truck idling times; and MM 3.2-2 requiring implementation of fugitive dust control measures. Once the Project is complete, there would be no long-term changes to the operations of the pipeline; therefore, there would be no change to existing emissions. Project emissions of criteria pollutants during construction would remain below SCAQMD regional and localized emissions thresholds. The Project would be consistent with air quality policies set forth by the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as presented in the region's most recent Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). An evaluation of potential odors from the Project indicated that associated impacts would be less than significant. Project emissions of GHGs during construction and operations would remain below SCAQMD proposed thresholds. HELIX FIWIMTAIMIPIennlip Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Repot for OCSM&F PMiCa/IR0o2/J*2015 F&I THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HELIX FIWIMTAIMIPIennlip Pi QwMyand Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Repel for OCSM&F Project/IRO02/July 2015 F'2 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project proposes the upsizing of the Newhope-Placentia (NHP) Trunk Sewer in the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton (Project). Existing flows are currently being diverted (pumped) into the Santa Ana River line by the Yorba Linda Pump Station instead of being routed to the Newhope- Placentia Trunk Sewer due to the insufficient existing capacity. The Project analysis is tiered from the Orange County Sanitation District Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Collection System Improvement Plan (SCH No. 2006101018). The volume of future flows have been projected from the College Town development at California State University, Fullerton (CSUF), planned Anaheim Platinum Triangle development, future abandonment of the Yorba Linda Pump Station, and diversion of flows to incorporate flows from other Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD) trunk lines during dry weather operation. The new trunk line would be designed to accommodate 2040 peak wet weather flows. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The Project alignment is located in the cities of Fullerton and Anaheim (Figure 1, Regional Location and Figure 2, Project Alignment [Aerial Photograph]). The Project alignment starts near the Yorba Linda Pumping Station, located at the intersection of Yorba Linda Boulevard and North Campus Road/Associated Road within the City of Fullerton. The Project alignment proceeds west on Yorba Linda Boulevard until the Yorba Linda Boulevard/State College Boulevard intersection. The Project alignment then proceeds south along State College Boulevard. The proposed Project alignment ends at State College Boulevard, approximately 500 feet south of State Route (SR) 91, within the city of Anaheim. 1.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISITCS 1.3.1 Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer The NHP Trunk Sewer Replacement Project 2-72A consists of the replacement of existing sewer line along the Project alignment. The approximate length of Project alignment is 14,205 feet. The new pipeline would be located near the median or along the edge of Yorba Linda Boulevard and State College Boulevard. The existing pipeline varies from an 18-inch pipe at the upstream end to a 33-inch pipe at the downstream end. The new pipeline proposed for the Project would be 30 to 48 inches in diameter. Approximately 1,900 feet of 30-inch to 36-inch vitrified clay pipeline placement along the alignment is occurring as a part of a currently-under-construction grade separation project (Project 2-65; see below for additional details regarding Project 2-65), and is not part of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in the replacement of approximately 12,300 feet of pipeline along the 14,205-foot alignment. The existing line would remain in place and in operation during construction. The new pipeline would be placed parallel to the existing line. The existing line would be abandoned in place following the completion of the new pipeline. At the southeast comer of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/State College Boulevard intersection, the existing pipeline leaves the roadway right-of-way and crosses the paved CSUF parking lot. In this location, the proposed Project alignment would not HELIX F W..MIPM.lq Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Ret M for OCSM&F Project/IRO02/July 2015 I follow the existing alignment, but rather, would be placed through the intersection of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/State College Boulevard, avoiding the CSUF property. The City of Fullerton and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) are currently constructing a vehicle undercrossing at the intersection of State College Boulevard and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway(Project 2-65). State College Boulevard is closed between Santa Fe Avenue and Kimberly Avenue for the construction of Project 2-65. Utilities within the footprint of Project 2-65 are being replaced as part of that project. Therefore, there the new pipeline for the NHP trunk sewer installed as part of the proposed Project would connect at the upstream and downstream ends of the new trunk sewer currently being installed as part of Project 2-65. State College Boulevard is anticipated to be closed to traffic between Fender Avenue and Kimberly Avenue from January 2015 to June 2017 for the construction of Project 2-65,with traffic detours in place to route around the Project 2-65 closure. 1.3.2 Wastewater Disposal Company Sewer The proposed Project also includes the abandonment or removal of approximately 10,000 linear feet of an out-of-service 10-to 12-inch Wastewater Disposal Company (W WDC) sewer pipeline. This out-of-service sewer line was originally constructed in the early 1900s by a private company and is now owned by OCSD. The WDCC is at a depth of approximately 5 feet, so the proposed Project includes the removal of up to 4,500 linear feet of the WDCC in areas where the new proposed pipeline would occur in a common trench with the WDCC. The remaining portions of the WDCC (up to 5,500 feet)would be abandoned in place. 1.4 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 1.4.1 Construction Activities The proposed Project would consist of standard open-cut trench construction methods along most of the alignment and trenchless construction (jack-and-bore) at two locations. For the open- cut trench construction, the trench would be area would be 8 feet in width, consisting of a 6-foot trench and one foot of disturbance on each side. The depth of pipeline placement associated with the open-cut trench method is anticipated to range from approximately 10 to 15 feet. The portions of the alignment where jack-and-bore construction methods would be used include approximately 600 linear feet at the SR-91 crossing at the portion of the alignment that crosses SR-91 and 60 linear feet at the Orange County Flood Control Channel Crossing, with both occurring on State College Boulevard. Tunnel access pits would be constructed at each end of the two locations proposed for jack-and-bore methods. At the Orange County Flood Control Channel Crossing, the two pits would be 16 feet by 16 feet for the receiving pit at the north end and 16 feet by 24 feet for the launch pit at the south end. At the SR-91 crossing, one 10-foot by 15-foot receiving pit would be located north of the SR-91 westbound off- and on- ramps, in the landscaped median of State College Boulevard. The launch pit would be 10 feet by 34 feet and would be located within the landscaped median of the south side of SR-91,just south of the east bound on- and off- ramps. The depth of pipeline crossings at these two locations is anticipated to be approximately 16 to 18 feet. HELIX FIWIMTB�MIP14rnlip Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical RepM for OCSM&F Project/1R0o2/July 2015 2 r LOS ANGELES COU 11Y9,� �.._.._. _.._. _.._.._.._. B I ORANGE COUNT `\Fq •.t Yorba FC��CO Fullerton Linda L,yryaL,I, --j r. ,f Buena .P4 j Park op Anaheim !. 0 `O iI Zo Orange \Ly Gartlen '•!L Grove t �\ Seal p a' d Beach Westminster Santa Tustin �q 1 Ana 9 'a Fountain i Huntington Valley o4 \ Beach 3 Costa a �1 Mesa tea. Irvine Lake .l -.� Forest 1 - \ Newport % Beach Mission Viejo /• Aliso j \ Viejo ' Laguna / `Beach Laura •\\ Niguel O 1 2 Pacific w RIVERSIDE COIINTV._ San Juan i SAN DIEGO COUNTY Oc2Utt Dana Capistrano ¢ I \Point / San - Clemente; tl �a _ 00p r.ighL©2014 Esri Regional Location NEWHOPE-PLACENTIA TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT HELIX Figure 1 fml.. owmuam, c - Larkl Ellen Ur hoshonlAw e ' u ,� Rolling Nllls D Me w n` 5 a Bestarchury RE le Ur m _ 1.: `d@� y e . 4 Muamar DF' m � m Topail� d/sb r a a � V w • ��glM1�' � p° a .Alta Vista t a Project Alignment E Wilshire A$`ve ° � � � ey Balfour Ave j"',") 4 ���� fl9 r4 yp � W i ��'� � Stanford Dr - Q E�GommonwealthA've _ penteryg[ � f x �� N ¢ P {� ww P�entler Ave + . � a• 3 ECrowther Ave E Valencia Dr i dp{�yp�� ' E Elm Ave � i�r�4 c� Ii���WI-I orPa,Pva N > � Kimberly�Ave N�a Arw yIN� E pra�etl w I, E E Orangethorpo ve N 1 Profeet Alignment E Via Borton EMM Bu on 5i fiy+. � i a o m c�atW^ Epor°aad e y E u E Rom ey Gr m .tl s em E m i E La Palma Ava m � i m o Z L§i c 2 -Z �^i Aw � 2 ie •. ryMor 3. EeSY°aurora Sl > ,x o p E4rM01 � .. t Eta`5 pAve ' \r Epenter5 EbBroadwaY E rc A ' Project construction would require the removal and replacement of approximately 83,700 square feet of pavement. Approximately 28,000 cubic yards of soil would be removed from the Project alignment and hauled to an approved off-site disposal location. Construction activities would require some lane closures along State College Boulevard and Yorba Linda Boulevard. Lane closures along Yorba Linda Boulevard would occur only during summer months (and possibly during December 2016 and January 2017, if not completed during the summer months), when CSUF is out of session. The closures along Yorba Linda Boulevard during summer months would require one lane to be kept open. Lane closures on State College Boulevard from Nutwood Avenue to Dorothy Lane would be also limited to summer work, and one lane would be open during this time. If work along this segment is not completed in the summer months of 2016, work would occur on weekends until the work is finished. Each of the lanes is 15-feet wide. Lane closures for the Project, including the remaining portions of State College Boulevard, would occur in small segments associated with the immediate area of pipeline construction. Lane closure lengths would be limited to 800 to 1,000 linear feet at a time. 1.4.2 Construction Equipment Construction activities for the proposed Project may occur on two segments simultaneously. It is assumed that construction activities would be occurring on both north and south segments of the alignment (which is divided by the Project 2-65 grade separation). Construction equipment at each construction location for the Project would include: • large track excavator(1) • pipe delivery trucks/flatbed • dump trucks (5) • crew pickup trucks (6) • traffic control trucks • flashers/messenger boards (2) • water truck(1) 1.4.3 Construction Schedule Construction of the Project is projected to begin in July 2016 and be completed within 18 months subsequent to initiation. The average pipeline construction rate would be approximately 60 feet of pipe per day for the portion along Yorba Linda Boulevard, and approximately 100 feet per day for the portion along State College Boulevard. Construction activities and associated equipment maintenance would be limited to weekdays (excluding holidays) from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 1.4.4 Program Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures were identified in the PEIR to reduce construction-related air quality impacts: • Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a: Contractors will maintain equipment engines in proper tune and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. HELIX F Wro.NIPM.14 Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical RepM for OCSM&F Project/IRO02/July 2015 3 • Mitigation Measure 3.2-lb: During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading or unloading queues will keep engines off,when not in use,to reduce vehicle emissions. • Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Contractors will reduce fugitive dust emissions through implementation of the following dust control measures: o Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand,or other loose materials o Apply water as necessary on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites o Sweep all paved access roads,parking areas, and stating areas at construction sites with water sweepers o Water or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers to exposed soil stockpiles or areas disturbed by construction activities which produce dust o Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour HELIX FIWIMTAIMIPIennlip Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical RepM for OCSM&F Project/1ROo2/July 2015 4 2.0 REGULATORY SETTING 2.1 CRITERIA POLLUTANTS 2.1.1 Pollutants of Concern Criteria pollutants are defined by state and federal law as a risk to the health and welfare of the general public. In general,air pollutants include the following compounds: • Ozone (03) • Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs)or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) • Carbon Monoxide(CO) • Nitrogen Dioxide(NO2) • Respirable Particulate Matter and Fine Particulate Matter(PM10 and PM2,5) • Sulfur dioxide(S02) • Lead(Pb) The following specific descriptions of health effects for each of the air pollutants potentially associated with Project construction and operations are based on information provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 2007) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB 2009). Ozone. Ozone is considered a photochemical oxidant, which is a chemical that is formed when VOCs and nitrogen oxides (NOx), both by-products of fuel combustion, react in the presence of ultraviolet light. Ozone is considered a respiratory irritant and prolonged exposure can reduce lung function, aggravate asthma, and increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. Children and those with existing respiratory diseases are at greatest risk from exposure to ozone. Reactive Organic Gases. (ROGs; also known as VOCs) are compounds composed primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of ROGs. Other sources of ROGs include evaporative emissions from paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. Adverse effects on human health are not caused directly by ROGs, but rather by reactions of ROGs to form secondary pollutants such as ozone. Carbon Monoxide. CO is a product of fuel combustion. CO is an odorless, colorless gas. CO affects red blood cells in the body by binding to hemoglobin and reducing the amount of oxygen that can be carried to the body's organs and tissues. CO can cause health effects to those with cardiovascular disease and can also affect mental alertness and vision. Nitrogen Dioxide.NO2 is also a by-product of fuel combustion and is formed both directly as a product of combustion and in the atmosphere through the reaction of nitrogen oxide (NO) with oxygen. NO2 is a respiratory irritant and may affect those with existing respiratory illness, including asthma.NO2 can also increase the risk of respiratory illness. Respirable Particulate Matter and Fine Particulate Matter. Respirable particulate matter, or PMIo, refers to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less. Fine HELIX FnWronmMlBl Plenmip Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Ret M for OCSM&F Project/tR0o2/July 2015 i particulate matter, or PM2.s, refers to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less. Particulate matter in these size ranges have been determined to have the potential to lodge in the lungs and contribute to respiratory problems. PM10 and PM25 arise from a variety of sources, including road dust, diesel exhaust, fuel combustion, tire and brake wear, construction operations, and windblown dust. PMm and PM2.5 can increase susceptibility to respiratory infections and can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic bronchitis. PM2,5 is considered to have the potential to lodge deeper in the lungs. Diesel particulate matter(DPM)is classified a carcinogen by CARB. Sulfur dioxide. S02 is a colorless, reactive gas that is produced from the burning of sulfur- containing fuels such as coal and oil and by other industrial processes. Generally, the highest concentrations of S02 are found near large industrial sources. S02 is a respiratory irritant that can cause narrowing of the airways leading to wheezing and shortness of breath. Long-term exposure to S02 can cause respiratory illness and aggravate existing cardiovascular disease. Lead. Lead in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. With the phase-out of leaded gasoline, large manufacturing facilities are the sources of the largest amounts of lead emissions. Lead has the potential to cause gastrointestinal, central nervous system, kidney and blood diseases upon prolonged exposure. Lead is also classified as a probable human carcinogen. Because emissions of lead are found only in projects that are permitted by SCAQMD, lead is not an air quality of concern for the proposed Project. 2.1.2 Federal Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and the CAA Amendments of 1971 required the USEPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). States retain the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other specific pollutants. On April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court found that CO2 is an air pollutant covered by the CAA; however, no NAAQS have been established for CO2. Current NAAQS are listed in Table 1, California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The federal standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. The USEPA has classified air basins (or portions thereof) as being in "attainment," "nonattainment," or "unclassified' for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the NAAQS have been achieved. If an area is designated unclassified, it is because inadequate air quality data were available as a basis for a nonattainment or attainment designation. The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and, as such, is in an area designated a nonattainment area for certain pollutants that are regulated under the CAA. Table 2,South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status, lists the federal attainment status of the SCAB for the criteria pollutants. The USEPA classifies the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB as in attainment HELIX F W..MIPM.14 Pi Qwby and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical RepM for OCSM&F Project/IROo2/July 2015 6 for CO, NO2, and S02; unclassified for PMm; and in nonattainlnent for ozone, lead, and PM2.5 with respect to federal air quality standards. Table 1 CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Pollutant Averaging California Federal Standards Time Standards Primary' Secondary' 1 Hour 0.09 ppm(180 µg/m') — — Os 8 Hour 0.070 ppm(137 µg/m) 0.075 ppm(147 µg/m3) Same as Primary PM10 24 How 50 µg/m' 150 µg/m' Same as Primary AAM 20 µg/m' — Same as Primary 24 How — 35 µg/m' Same as Primary PM2.5 AAM 12 µg/m' 12.0 µg/m' Same as Primary 1 How 20 ppm(23 mg/m3) 35 ppm(40 mg/-) — CO 8 How 9.0 ppm(10 mg/m) 9 ppm(l0 mg/m') — 8 How 6 plan(7 mg/m3) — — (Lake Tahoe) AAM 0.030 ppm(57 µg/m) 0.053 ppm(100 µg/m) Same as Primary NOt 1 How 0.18 ppm(339 µg/m) 0.100 ppm(188 µg/m) — 24 How 0.04 ppm(105 µg/m) — — SOt 3 How — _ 0.5 ppm (1,300 µg/m) 1 How 0.25 ppm(655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm(196 µg/m3) — 30-day Avg. 1.5 µg/m' — — Lead Calendar Quarter — 1.5 µg/m3 Rolling s Same as Primary 3-month Avg. — 0.15 µg/m Extinction coefficient Visibility of0.23 per km— Reducing 8 how visibility> 10 miles Particles (0.07 per km-2!30 No miles for Lake Tahoe) Federal Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Standards Hydrogen 1 How 0.03 ppm(42 µg/m3) Sulfide Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.01 ppm(26 µg/m3) source:CARB 2013b Oa:omne;ppm:parts Per million;µg/m'-micmgmms per cubic meter;PMn:large particulate matter; AAM: Annual Arithmetic Mean; PMis: fine particulate matter; CO: carbon monoxide; mglm3: milligrams per cubic meter; NOr nitrogen dioxide;S02:sulfur dioxide;km:kilometer;—:No standard. ' National Primary standards: The levels of air quality necessary, within an adequate margin of artery, m protect the public health. ° National Secondery,Standards:The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. Now More detailed information in the data presented in this table can be found at the CARB website(wwwurb.ca.gov). HELIX iawaasBaMIPleoaoa Ar Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Repair for OfSM&P project/1RO02/July 2015 7 Table 2 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone 1-hour No Standard Nonattainment Ozone 8-hour Extreme Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment/Maintenance Attainment PM10 Attainment/Maintenance Nonattainment PMis Moderate Nonattainment Nonattainment NO, Attainment/Maintenance Attainment S02 Attainment Attainment Lead Nonattainment/Anainment Nonattainment/Attainment Source:CARB,2015.Area Designations:Activities and Maps,htto//w arb.ca.gov/desia/adm/adin.him. 'Los Angeles County is classified nonattainment for lead;the remainder of the SCAB is in attainment of the state and federal standards The CAA (and its subsequent amendments) requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments dictate that states containing areas violating the NAAQS revise their SIPS to include extra control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP includes strategies and control measures to attain the NAAQS by deadlines established by the CAA. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, plans, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The USEPA has the responsibility to review all SIPS to determine whether they conform to the requirements of the CAA. 2.1.3 California Clean Air Act The federal CAA allows states to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided that they are at least as stringent as federal standards. CARB, a part of the California EPA (CaIEPA), is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California, including setting the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The CARB also conducts research, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local programs. CARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. CARB also has primary responsibility for the development of California's SIP, for which it works closely with the federal government and the local air districts. In addition to primary and secondary ambient air quality standards, the state has established a set of episode criteria for ozone, CO, NO2, 5O2, and PM. These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short-term exposure to air pollutants that actually threaten public health. Table 2 lists the state attainment status of the SCAB for the criteria pollutants. The Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for ozone, lead, PM2.5, and PMlo with respect to state air quality standards. HELIX EnWronmMMl PlemNp Ar Quatityand Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Repoli 8r OCSDN&F Project/IRO02/July 2015 8 2.1.4 South Coast Air Quality Management District The Project is located in Orange County. Air quality in Orange County, which includes the Project area, is regulated by the SCAQMD. As a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with SLAG, county transportation commissions, and local governments, as well as cooperates actively with all federal and state government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines,when necessary. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). An AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at attaining the NAAQS and CAAQS. The regional plan applicable to the proposed Project is the SCAQMD's AQMP. On December 7, 2012, the SCAQMD adopted the 2012 AQMP, which is a regional and multi- agency effort(SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and USEPA). The 2012 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG's 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS); updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories; and SCAG's latest growth forecasts (SCAQMD 2013). On December 20, 2012, the 2012 AQMP was submitted to CARB and the USEPA for concurrent review and approval for inclusion in the SIP(SCAQMD 2013). The 2012 AQMP was approved by the CARB on January 25,2013 (GARB 2013c). 2.2 TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are a category of air pollutants that have been shown to have an impact on human health but are not classified as criteria pollutants. Examples include certain aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals, and asbestos. Air toxics are generated by a number of sources, including stationary ones such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources, and laboratories; mobile ones such as automobiles; and area sources such as farms, landfills, construction sites, and residential areas. Adverse health effects of TACs can be carcinogenic (cancer-causing), short-term (acute) noncarcinogenic, and long-term (chronic) noncarcinogenic. Public exposure to TACs is a significant environmental health issue in California. California's air toxics control program began in 1983 with the passage of the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act, better known as Assembly Bill (AB) 1807 or the Tanner Bill. When a compound becomes listed as a TAC under the Tanner process, the CARB normally establishes minimum statewide emission control measures to be adopted by local air pollution control districts. Later legislative amendments (AB 2728) required the CARB to incorporate all 189 federal hazardous air pollutants(HAPs) into the state list of TACs. Supplementing the Tanner process, AB 2588 — the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987 — currently regulates over 600 air compounds, including all of the Tanner-designated TACs. Under AB 2588, specified facilities must quantify emissions of regulated air toxics and report them to the local Air Pollution Control District (APCD). If the HELIX IAW..NIPM.1p Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical ltepM 8r OCSM&F Project/[RO02/July 2015 9 APCD determines that a potentially significant public health risk is posed by a given facility, the facility is required to perform a health risk assessment (HRA) and notify the public in the affected area if the calculated risks exceed specified criteria. On August 27, 1998, CARB formally identified PM emitted in both gaseous and particulate forms by diesel-fueled engines as a TAC. The particles emitted by diesel engines are coated with chemicals, many of which have been identified by the USEPA as HAPs and by CARB as TACs. CARB's Scientific Advisory Committee has recommended a unit risk factor (URF) of 300 in 1 million over a 70-year exposure period for diesel particulate. In September 2000, the CARB approved the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles (Diesel Risk Reduction Plan; CARB 2000). The Diesel Risk Reduction Plan outlined a comprehensive and ambitious program that included the development of numerous new control measures over the next several years aimed at substantially reducing emissions from new and existing on-road vehicles (e.g., heavy-duty trucks and buses), off-road equipment (e.g., graders, tractors, forklifts, sweepers, and boats), portable equipment (e.g.,pumps), and stationary engines (e.g., stand-by power generators). These requirements are now in force on a statewide basis. 2.3 GREENHOUSE GASES 2.3.1 Climate Chanee Overview Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth, as a whole, including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Historical records show that global temperature changes have occurred naturally, such as during previous ice ages. To measure climate change, scientists look at long-term trends. The temperature trend, including data through 2010, shows the climate has warmed by approximately 0.360Farenheit (F) per decade since the late 1970s (National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] 2011). Global temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases. These gases are commonly referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they function like a greenhouse by letting light in but preventing heat from escaping, thus warring the Earth's atmosphere. The resulting balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation from both the Earth's surface and the atmosphere maintains the planet's habitability. The Earth's surface temperature averages about 58o17 because of the greenhouse effect. Without it, the Earth's average surface temperature would be somewhere around an uninhabitable 00F. GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human (anthropogenic) activities. Anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily associated with (1) the burning of fossil fuels during motorized transport, electricity generation, natural gas consumption, industrial activity, manufacturing, and other activities; (2) deforestation; (3) agricultural activity; and(4) solid waste decomposition. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts. The statistical models show a "high confidence" that temperature increase caused by anthropogenic GHG emissions could be kept to less than 20Celsius relative to pre-industrial HELIX IAWro.NIPM.1 p Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical RepM for OCSM&F Project/IR0o2/July 2015 10 levels if atmospheric concentrations are stabilized at about 450 parts per million (ppm) carbon dioxide equivalent(CO2e)by the year 2100 (IPCC 2014). 2.3.2 Types of Greenhouse Gases The GHGs, as defined under California's AB 32, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Although water vapor is the most abundant and variable GHG in the atmosphere, it is not considered a pollutant; it maintains a climate necessary for life. CO2 is the most important and common anthropogenic GHG. CO2 is an odorless, colorless GHG. Natural sources include the decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungi; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources of CO2 include burning fuels, such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Data from ice cores indicate that CO2 concentrations remained steady prior to the current period for approximately 10,000 years. The atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2010 was 390 ppm, 39 percent above the concentration at the start of the Industrial Revolution(about 280 ppm in 1750). As of April 2015, the CO2 concentration exceeded 401 ppm (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2015). CH4 is the main component of natural gas used in homes. A natural source of methane is from the decay of organic matter. Geological deposits known as natural gas fields contain methane, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from decay of organic material in landfills, fermentation of manure, and cattle digestion. N20 is produced by both natural and human-related sources. N20 is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during the combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. Primary human-related sources of NO are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic (fatty) acid production, and nitric acid production. Fluorocarbons are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. Chlorofluorocarbons we nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically nonreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at Earth's surface). Chlorofluorocarbons were first synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. They destroy stratospheric ozone; therefore, their production was stopped as required by the 1987 Montreal Protocol. SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless,nontoxic,nonflammable gas. SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semi- conductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection. GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes that range from one year to several thousand years. Long atmospheric lifetimes allow for GHGs to disperse around the globe. Because GHGs vary widely in the power of their climatic effects, climate scientists have established a unit called global warming potential (GWP). The GWP of a gas is a measure of both potency and lifespan in the atmosphere as compared to CO2. For example, because methane and N20 are approximately 25 and 298 times more powerful than CO2, respectively, in their ability to trap heat in the HELIX EnWronmMMl PlemNp Pi Qwby and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Ret M for OCSM&F Project/IR0o2/July 2015 I I atmosphere, they have GWPs of 25 and 298, respectively (CO2 has a GWP of 1). CO2C is a quantity that enables all GHG emissions to be considered as a group despite their varying GWP. The GWP of each GHG is multiplied by the prevalence of that gas to produce CO2e. The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected GHGs are summarized in Table 3, Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetimes. Table 3 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIMES Greenhouse Gas Atmospheric Lifetime Global Warming Potential ears 100- ear time horizon Carbon Dioxide CO2 50-200 1 Methane Clio 12 25 Nitrous Oxide 20 114 298 HFC-134a 14 1,430 PFC: Tetraflouromethane CFa 50,000 7,390 PFC: Hexafluoroethane C2F6 10,000 12,200 Sulfur Hexafluoride SF6 3,200 22,800 Source:IPCC 2007 HFC:hydrofluorocubon;PFC:perfluorocubon 2.3.3 Federal GHG Regulations Federal Clean Air Act The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that CO2 is an air pollutant, as defined under the CAA, and that the USEPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs. The USEPA announced that GHGs (including CO2, CH4, N20, HFC, PFC, and SF6) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. This action was a prerequisite to finalizing the USEPA's GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by the USEPA and the United States (U.S.) Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The standards were established on April 1, 2010 for 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles and on October 15, 2012 for 2017 through 2025 model year vehicles (USEPA 2011; USEPA and NHTSA 2012). Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corpomte Average Fuel Economy Standards The USEPA and the NHTSA have been working together on developing a national program of regulations to reduce GHG emissions and to improve fuel economy of light-duty vehicles. The USEPA is finalizing the first-ever national GHG emissions standards under the CAA, and the NHTSA is finalizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. On April 1, 2010,the USEPA and NHTSA announced ajoint Final Rulemaking that established standards for 2012 through 2016 model year vehicles. This was followed up on October 15, 2012, when the agencies issued a Final Rulemaking with standards for model years 2017 through 2025. The roles require these vehicles to meet an estimated HELIX EnWronmMM1l PlemNp Pi Qtonyand Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Repel for OCSM&F Project/IRO,02/July 2015 12 combined average emissions level of 250 grams per mile by 2016, decreasing to an average industry fleet-wide level of 163 grams per mile in model year 2025. The 2016 standard is equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg), and the 2025 standard is equivalent to 54.5 mpg if the levels were achieved solely through improvements in fuel efficiency. The agencies expect, however, that a portion of these improvements will be made through improvements in air conditioning leakage and the use of alternative refrigerants that would not contribute to fuel economy. These standards would cut GHG emissions by an estimated 2 billion metric tons and 4 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 2017-2025). The combined USEPA GHG standards and NHTSA CAFE standards resolve previously conflicting requirements under both federal programs and the standards of the State of California and other states that have adopted the California standards (USEPA 2011; USEPA and NHTSA 2012). 2.3.4 State GHG Rein lations There are numerous State plans, policies, regulations, and laws related to GHGs and global climate change. Following is a discussion of some of these plans, policies, and regulations that (1) establish overall State policies and GHG reduction targets; (2) require State or local actions that result in direct or indirect GHG emission reductions for the proposed Project; and(3)require CEQA analysis of GHG emissions. Assembly Bill 1493—Vehicular Emissions of Greenhouse Gases AB 1493 (Pavley) requires that CARB develop and adopt regulations that achieve "tire maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty truck and other vehicles determined by CARB to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State". On September 24, 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the Pavley regulations that intend to reduce GHG emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016. The amendments bind California's enforcement of AB 1493 (starting in 2009), while providing vehicle manufacturers with new compliance flexibility. The amendments also prepare California to merge its rules with the federal CAFE rules for passenger vehicles (GARB 2013a). In January 2012, CARB approved a new emissions-control program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single packet of standards called Advanced Clean Cars(CARB 2013a). Executive Order S-3-05 On June 1, 2005, Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 proclaimed that California is vulnerable to climate change impacts. It declared that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, further exacerbate California's air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. In an effort to avoid or reduce climate change impacts, EO S-3-05 calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to the year 2000 level by 2010, to year 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. HELIX FIWIMTAIMIPIennlip Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Ret M 8r OCSM&F Project/1R0o2/July 2015 13 Executive Order S-01-07 This EO, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on January 18, 2007, directs that a statewide goal be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by the year 2020. It orders that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established for California and directs the CARB to determine whether a LCFS can be adopted as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32. The CARB approved the LCFS as a discrete early action item with a regulation adopted and implemented in April 2010. On December 29, 2011, District Judge Lawrence O'Neill in the Eastern District of California issued a preliminary injunction blocking the CARB from implementing LCFS for the remainder of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union litigation. The injunction was lifted in April 2012 so that CARB can continue enforcing the LCFS pending CARB's appeal of the federal district court ruling. Assembly Bill 32—Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires that CARB develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. CARB is directed to set a GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG reductions. Executive Order B-30-15 On April 29, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns Califomia's GHG reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 28 nation European Union. California is on track to meet or exceed the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in AB 32. California's new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 will make it possible to reach the ultimate goal established by EO S-3-05 of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050. California Air Resources Board: Scoping Plan On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted the Scoping Plan (GARB 2008) as directed by AB 32. The Scoping Plan proposes a set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California to the levels required by AB 32. Measures applicable to development projects include those related to energy-efficiency building and appliance standards, the use of renewable sources for electricity generation, regional transportation targets, and green building strategy. Relative to transportation, the Scoping Plan includes nine measures or recommended actions related to reducing vehicle miles traveled and vehicle GHGs through fuel and efficiency measures. These measures would be implemented statewide rather than on a project-by-project basis. The CARB released the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan in May 2014 to provide information on the development of measure-specific regulations and to adjust projections in consideration of the economic recession. The Scoping Plan's current estimate of the necessary GHG emission reductions to achieve the goal of AB 32 (i.e., 1990 levels by 2020) is 78 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e; CA" 2014c). The CA" is HELIX,,,,, Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical RepW for OCSM&P Project/IR002/July 2015 14 forecasting that this would be achieved through the following reductions by sector: 25 MMT CO2e for energy, 23 MMT CO2e for transportation, 5 MMT CO2e for high-GWp GHGs, and 2 MMT CO2e for waste. The remaining 23 MMT CO2e would be achieved through Cap-and- Trade Program reductions. This reduction is flexible—if CARB receives new information and changes the other sectors' reductions to be less than expected, the agency can increase the Cap- and-Trade reduction(and vice versa). 2.3.5 South Coast Air O iality Manasement District GHG Reeulations Beginning in April 2008,the SCAQMD convened a Working Group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted its staff proposal for an interim CEQA GHG significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalent per year (CO2e/yr) for projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency. The policy objective for establishing this significance threshold and the recommended screening thresholds below is to capture projects that represent approximately 90 percent of GHG emissions from new sources (SCAQMD 2008a). These projects would be subject to further analysis and the incorporation of measures to reduce GHG emissions. In September 2010, the Working Group presented a revised tiered approach to determining GHG significance for residential and commercial projects (SCAQMD 2010). These proposals have not been considered by the SCAQMD Board. At Tier 1, GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant if a project qualifies under a categorical or statutory CEQA exemption. For projects that do not meet the Tier 1 criteria, the GHG emissions impact would be less than significant at Tier 2 if a project is consistent with a previously adopted GHG reduction plan that meets specific requirements. At Tier 3,the Working Group proposes extending the 10,000 MT CO2e/yr screening threshold currently applicable to industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency(described above)to other lead agency industrial projects. For residential and commercial projects, the Working Group proposes a 3,000 MT CO2e/yr threshold for all land use types. A project with emissions less than the applicable screening value would be considered to have less than significant GHG emissions. HELIX FIWIMTAIMIPIennlip Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical RepM for O(SM&P Project/1ROo2/July 2015 IS 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY The Project site is located in the SCAB, which consists of all or part of four counties: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange. The distinctive climate of the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographic location. The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. It is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains wound the rest of its perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light, average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. Winds in the Project area are usually driven by the dominant land/sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime onshore sea breezes. At night, the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling toward the sea. Local canyons can also alter wind direction, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB is hampered by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. High-pressure systems, such as the semi-permanent high pressure zone in which the SCAB is located, are characterized by an upper layer of dry air that warms as it descends, restricting the mobility of cooler marine-influenced air near the ground surface, and resulting in the formation of subsidence inversions. Such inversions restrict the vertical dispersion of air pollutants released into the marine layer and, together with strong sunlight, can produce worst-case conditions for the formation of photochemical smog. The basin- wide occurrence of inversions at 3,500 feet above mean sea level or less averages 191 days per year(SCAQMD 1993). The annual average maximum temperature as measured at the Anaheim City climatic station, approximately 2.7 miles east of the Project site, is 77.4°F. The highest monthly average maximum temperature (87.1°F) occurs in August, and the lowest monthly average minimum temperature (46.9°F) occurs in December. The average annual precipitation is approximately 14 inches (Western Regional Climate Center[WRCC] 2015). 3.2 EXISTING AIR QUALITY 3.2.1 Criteria Pollutants Attainment Desi nae tions Attainment designations are discussed in Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 and Table 2, South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status. The SCAB is a federal and state nonattainment area for ozone, PM2.5, and lead, although the nonattainment designation for lead is limited to Los Angeles County. The SCAB is also a state nonattainment area for PM10. Monitored Air Oualitv Criteria air pollutant concentrations are measured at several monitoring stations in Orange County. The closest station to the Project site is identified as the Anaheim — Pampas Lane HELIX EnWronmMMl Plenn4p Pi Qwbty and Greenhouse Gas Emsions Technical Report 8r OCSM&F Project/[RO02/July 2015 16 Monitoring Station, located at 1630 North Pampas Lane, approximately 3 miles west of the alignment. Equipment at the station measures ozone, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and NO2 levels. Table 4, Air Quality Monitoring Data, summarizes the air quality data from this station for the most recent three-year period(2012-2014). The data show violations of the federal and state 8-hour ozone standards and the 1-hour ozone state standard in 2014. The levels of CO and NO2 did not exceed state or federal standards in the last three years. PMlo levels exceeded the state 24-hour standard in once in 2013 and twice in 2014. PM2.5 levels exceeded the federal 24-hour standard in each of the three years sampled. Table 4 AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA Pollutant 2012 2013 2014 Ozone Ot Maximum 1-hour concentration m 0.079 0.084 0.111 Days above 1-hour state standard >0.09 m 0 0 2 Maximum 8-hour concentration m 0.067 0.070 0.081 Days above 8-hour state standard >0.070 m 0 0 6 Days above 8-hour federal standard >0.075 m 0 0 4 Carbon Monoxide CO Maximum 8-how concentration m 2.34 • " Days above state or federal standard >9.0 m 0 0 0 Respirable Particulate Matter(PMta Maximum 24-hour concentration ms 48.0 77.0 85.0 Days above state standard >50 m' 0 1 2 Days above federal standard I>150 ms 0 0 0 Fine Particulate Matter PMrs Maximum 24-hour concentration ms 50.1 37.8 45.0 Days above federal standard >35 mt 4 1 4 Nitro en Dioxide Ot Maximum 1-hour concentration m 0.067 0.081 0.075 Days above state 1-hour standard 0.18 m 0 0 0 source:CARB(2015b) plan=parts per million,µg/mr=micrograms per cubic meter •Insufficient data available 3.2.2 Toxic Air Contaminants The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study III (MATES III) is a monitoring and evaluation study conducted in the SCAB and is part of the SCAQMD Governing Board's 2003-2004 Environmental Justice Workplan. The study focuses on the carcinogenic risk from exposure to air toxics. It does not estimate mortality or other adverse health effects from particulate exposures. The MATES III Study consists of several elements: a monitoring program; an updated emissions inventory of toxic air contaminants; and a modeling effort to characterize risk across the SCAB. HELIX GWronmMMl Plenn4p Pi Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Repot 8r OCSM&F Project/IRO,02/July 2015 17 The MATES III study estimates that the average carcinogenic risk from air toxics in the SCAB is about 1,200 per 1 million. This risk refers to the expected number of additional cancers in a population of 1 million individuals that are exposed over a 70-year lifetime. Using the MATES HI methodology, about 94 percent of the risk is attributed to emissions associated with mobile sources, and about 6 percent of the risk is attributed to toxics emitted from stationary sources, which include industries and businesses such as dry cleaners and chrome plating operations. The results indicate that diesel exhaust is the major contributor to air toxics risk and accounts on average for about 84 percent of the total(SCAQMD 2008b). The MATES III study used monitored data to model risk throughout the SCAB. The modeled carcinogenic risk for the area, including the Project site ranges from approximately 931 per 1 million near the south end of the alignment to approximately 1,096 per 1 million near the north end of the alignment(SCAQMD 2008c). 3.2.3 Greenhouse Gases In the year 2011, total GHG emissions worldwide were estimated at 43,373 MMT CO2e (World Resources Institute 2014). The U.S. contributed the second largest portion of GHG emissions (behind China) at 15 percent of global emissions. The total U.S. GHGs were 6,673 MMT CO2C in 2013 (USEPA 2015). On a national level, approximately 27 percent of GHG emissions were associated with transportation and about 31 percent were associated with electricity generation. In 2012, California produced a total of 459 MMT CO2e (CARB 2014c). The transportation sector is the single largest category of California's GHG emissions, accounting for 37 percent of emissions statewide in 2012 (CARB 2014c). HELIX FIWIMTp1MIPlennlip Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical RepM for OCSM&F Project/IR0o2/July 2015 18 4.0 METHODOLOGY AND THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE 4.1 METHODOLOGY 4.1.1 Construction Emissions Construction emissions were calculated by using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2 (SCAQMD 2013c). CaIEEMod is a computer program accepted by the SCAQMD that can be used to estimate anticipated emissions associated with land development projects in California. CalEEMod has separate databases for specific counties and air districts. The Orange County database was used for the proposed Project. The model calculates emissions of CO, PM10, PM2.5, the ozone precursors VOC and NOx, and the GHGs CO, CH, and NZO. Specific inputs to CalEEMod include land uses and Project site areas. Construction input data include, but are not limited to, (1) the anticipated start and finish dates of construction activity; (2) inventories of construction equipment to be used; (3) areas to be excavated and graded; and (4)volumes of materials to be exported from and imported to the Project area. The input data and assumptions are discussed in Section 1.3 and provided in detail in Appendix A. CalEEMod has the capability to calculate reductions in construction emissions from the effects of dust control, diesel-engine classifications, and other selected emissions reduction measures. CalEEMod was developed using EMFAC 2011 and OFFROAD 2011 for calculating emissions from on-road vehicles and off-road construction equipment,respectively. Construction emission calculations presented herein assume the implementation of standard dust control measures as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, including watering two times daily during grading, ensuring that all exposed surfaces maintain a minimum soil moisture of 12 percent, and limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per how(mph). Project construction would also comply with following mitigation measures (MM)prescribed in the PEIR for the Collection System Improvement Plan as prepared for the OCSD in March 2007: MM 3.2-la requiring proper maintenance of offroad engines; MM 3.2-lb restricting truck idling times; and MM 3.2-2 requiring implementation of fugitive dust control measures. 4.1.2 Local Concentrations of Criteria Pollutants from On-Site Emissions As part of the SCAQMD's environmental justice program, more attention has been focused on localized air quality effects. In addition to CEQA significance thresholds for mass daily emissions and regional conditions, the SCAQMD has established thresholds for ambient air quality (Table 5, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds) to address localized impacts. Also, while regional impact analysis is based on attaining or maintaining regional emissions standards, localized impact analysis compares the concentration of a pollutant at a receptor site to a health-based standard. SCAQMD staff then developed localized significance threshold (LST) methodology and mass rate look-up tables by source receptor area (SRA) that can be used by public agencies to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. HELIX FIWIMTB�MIP14rnlip Pi QwMyand Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Rer W Br OCSM&F Project/1R0o2/July 2015 19 LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; they are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA(SCAQMD 2009). The LST methodology translates the concentration standards into emissions thresholds that are a function of project site area, source to receptor distance, and the location within the SCAB. The LST methodology is recommended to be limited to projects of 5 acres or less and to avoid the need for complex dispersion modeling. The method was used for the Project because construction near any individual receptor would occur in an area of less than five acres. The local concentration analysis is performed for Project construction activities. The analysis is not performed for operations because there would be no substantial on-site long-term sources of pollutants. 4.2 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 4.2.1 Air Ouality According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant air quality environmental impact if it would: I. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 4. Expose sensitive receptors (i.e., day care centers, schools, retirement homes, and hospitals or medical patients in residential homes which could be impacted by air pollutants)to substantial pollutant concentrations; or 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to assess the regional and localized impacts of project-related air pollutant emissions. The significance thresholds are updated, as needed, to appropriately represent the most current technical information and attainment status in the SCAB. Table 5, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, presents the most current significance thresholds, including regional daily thresholds for short-term construction and long-term operational emissions; maximum incremental cancer risk and hazard indices for TACs; and maximum ambient concentrations for exposure of sensitive receptors to localized pollutants. A project with daily emission rates, risk values, or concentrations below these thresholds is generally considered to have a less than significant effect on air quality. HELIX GWronm9nMl Plenn4p Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions TechnicalltepM for OCSM&F Project/IROa2/J*2015 20 Table 5 SCAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Mass Daily Thresholds Ibs/da Pollutant Construction Operation VOC 75 55 NOx 100 55 CO 550 550 PMm 150 150 PMis 55 55 sox 150 150 Lead 3 3 Toxic Air Contaminants Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk> 10 in 1 million TACs Cancer Burden>0.5 excess cancer cases(in areas> 1 in 1 million) Chronic&Acute Hazard Index> 1.0(project increment Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to Rule 402 GHG 10,000 MT/ r COie for industrial facilities Ambient Air Quality For Criteria Pollutants NO, 1-how average>0.18 ppm Annual average>0.03 plan CO 1-hour average>20.0 ppm(state) 8-how average>9.0 11 m state/federal 24-how average> 10.4 µg/m (constmction) PM10 24-how average>2.5 µg/m'(operation) Annual average> 1.0 /m' PM2 5 24-how average> 10.4 µg/m (constmction) 24-how average>2.5 m' o c ri SOa, 24-how average>25 m Source:SCAQMD 2015 a TACs(carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic) n Ambient air quality threshold based on SCAQMD Rule 403. Ibs/day:pounds per day;VOC:volatile organic compound;Nos:nitrogen oxides;CO:carbon monoxide; Pbl a:respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PMre: fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SOx: sulfur oxides; TACs: toxic air contaminants;GHG:greenhouse gas emissions;MT/yr metric tons per year;COre:carbon dioxide equivalent; NOr:nitrogen dioxide;ppm:pans per million;pg/ms:micrograms per cubic meter. 4.2.2 Greenhouse Gases Because the magnitude of global GHG emissions is extremely large when compared with the emissions of typical local infrastructure projects, it is accepted as very unlikely that any individual project would have GHG emissions of a magnitude to directly impact global climate change. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association's (CAPCOA's) CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act states, "GHG impacts are exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non-cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective" (CAPCOA 2008). As noted in the California Natural Resources Agency's (CNRA's) Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines HELIX Fnw..NIPM.1p Ar Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Repo[for OCSDxFF project/rR002/July 2015 21 Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97 (Senate Bill), "Due to the global nature of GHG emissions and their potential effects, GHG emissions will typically be addressed in a cumulative impacts analysis" (CNRA 2009). Therefore, the GHG impact analysis represents the cumulative impact analysis for the Project related to GHG emissions. The following significance criteria are from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Project would result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions if it would: 1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or 2. Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. There are no established federal, state, or local quantitative thresholds applicable to the Project to determine the quantity of GHG emissions that may have a significant effect on the environment. CARB, the SCAQMD, and various cities and agencies have proposed, or adopted on an interim basis, thresholds of significance or threshold levels that require the implementation of GHG emission reduction measures. Because the Project is not a residential or commercial land use development project, the SCAQMD adopted interim screening threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e for industrial projects is being used for Project consistency with CEQA(SCAQMD 2008a). HELIX FIWIMTp1MIPlennlip Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions TechnicalltepM for OCSM&F Project/IRO02/J*2015 22 5.0 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS This section evaluates potential direct impacts of the proposed Project related to the air pollutant emissions. 5.1 CONSISTENCY WITH AIR QUALITY PLANS The two principal criteria for conformance to the AQMP are (1) whether a project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards and (2)whether a project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP(SCAQMD 1993). As described under Section 5.2 below, pollutant emissions from the proposed Project would be less than the SCAQMD thresholds and would not result in a significant impact. Further, the proposed Project does not involve a change in General Plan designation or zoning and,therefore, would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. No conflict with the 2012 AQMP would occur with the proposed Project. 5.2 CONFORMANCE TO FEDERAL AND STATE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS The Project would generate criteria pollutants in the short term during construction. Once the Project is complete, there would be no long-term changes to the operations of the pipeline; therefore, there would be no change to existing emissions. To determine whether a project would result in emissions that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, a project's emissions are evaluated based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD(as shown in Table 5). 5.2.1 Construction Project Emissions This Project's construction emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod model as described in Section 4.1, Methodology. Project-specific input was based on general information provided in Section 1.0, Project Description, and default model settings to estimate reasonable worst-case conditions. Additional details of phasing, selection of construction equipment, and other input parameters, including CalEEMod data, are included in Appendix A. Regional Construction Emissions The results of the calculations for Project construction are shown in Table 6, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions. Regional emissions are summed for activities assumed to overlap. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the SCAQMD mass daily thresholds. HELIX FIWIMTp1MIPlennlip Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Fmissions Technical RepM for OCSM&F Project/IRO02/J*2015 23 Table 6 MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Pollutant Emissions(pounds Per da Phase ROG NOx CO sox PM10 PMis Northern Alignment Installation 1 13 9 <I I 1 Southern Alignment Installation 1 13 9 <1 1 1 Maximum Daily Emissions 2 26 18 <1 2 1 SCAQMD Regional Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No Source:CalEEMod(output data is provided in Appendix A) As shown in Table 6, emissions of all criteria pollutants related to Project construction would be below the SCAQIv1D's significance thresholds. Thus, direct impacts from criteria pollutants generated during construction would be less than significant. Ambient Air Quality—Local Significance Thresholds Local pollutant concentrations were calculated using the SCAQMD LST methodology described in Section 4.1.2,Local Concentrations of Criteria Pollutants From On-Site Emissions. Activities at each overlapping subphase occur far enough apart such that they do not share sensitive receptors; therefore, localized emissions are not summed the same way regional emissions are. The applicable thresholds are taken from the LST tables for a 1-acre project site located in SRA 17, Central Orange County, with sensitive receptors within 25 meters (82 feet) of activity. The results of the LST calculations are shown in Table 7, Maximum Daily Local Construction Emissions. Table 7 MAXIMUM DAILY LOCAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (pounds/day) Phase/Year NOx CO PMia Northern Alignment Installation 11 7 <I <1 Southern Alignment Installation 11 7 <1 <1 Maximum Localized Emissions 11 7 <1 <1 SCAQMD Localized Thresholds 81 485 4 3 Exceed Threshold? No No No No Source: SCAQMD 2009(tlnesholds).CalEEMnd Outputs provided in Appendix A As shown in Table 7, emissions of all criteria pollutants related to Project construction would be below the SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds. Thus, local impacts from criteria pollutants generated during construction would be less than significant. HELIX a IWIMTp1MIPlennlip Pi Qwlityand Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report Br OCSM&F Project/IR0o2/J*2015 24 5.2.2 Operation Once the Project is complete, there would be no long-term changes to the operations of the pipeline;therefore, there would be no change to existing emissions. 5.3 CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF NONATTAINMENT CRITERIA POLLUTANTS The region is a federal and/or state nonattainment area for PM10, PM2.5, and ozone. The Project would contribute particulates and the ozone precursors VOC and NOx to the area during short-term Project construction. As described in Section 5.2.1, regional emissions during construction would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Construction emissions would be less than the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds (Table 6). Therefore, regional construction emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, and the impact would be less than significant. With respect to local impacts, cumulative construction particulate impacts are considered when projects may be within a few hundred yards of each other. No projects have been identified in the vicinity of the Project site that would be under construction concurrently with the proposed Project. Further, as shown in Table 7, local emissions from the proposed Project would be less than the screening thresholds. Therefore, local construction emissions would not be cumulatively considerable, and the impact would be less than significant. Once the Project is complete, there would be no long-teen changes to the operations of the pipeline;therefore, there would be no change to existing emissions. 5.4 IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RECEPTORS The SCAQMD describes sensitive receptors as residences, schools, day-care centers, playgrounds, medical facilities, or other facilities that may house individuals with health conditions (medical patients or elderly persons/athletes/students/children) that may be adversely affected by changes in air quality. Impacts to sensitive receptors are typically analyzed for construction period criteria pollutants, operational period CO hot spots, and exposure to TACs. An analysis of the Project's potential to expose sensitive receptors to these pollutants is provided below. 5.4.1 Criteria Pollutants from On-Site Construction As described in Section 5.2.1, Construction, and shown in Table 7, above, Project construction emissions would be below the SCAQMD's LSTs. The Project, therefore, would not expose sensitive receptors to emissions that would exceed the ambient air quality standards. 5.4.2 Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots A CO hot spot is an area of localized CO pollution caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. A quantitative screening is required in two instances: (1) if a project increases the average delay at signalized intersections operating at Level of Service (LOS) E or F; or (2) if a project causes an intersection that would operate at LOS D or HELIX FnWro.NIPM.14 Pi QwWyand Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical RepM Br OCSM&P Project/IRO02/July 2015 25 better without the Project to operate at LOS E or F with the Project. The Project would not result in an increase in daily lips. Thus, the Project would neither cause new severe congestion nor significantly worsen existing congestion. There would be no potential for a CO hot spot or exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial, Project-generated, local CO emissions. The impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 5.4.3 Exposure to TACs Construction activities would result in short-term, Project-generated emissions of diesel PM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment. CARB identified diesel PM as a TAC in 1998. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Thus, the risks estimated for a maximally exposed individual (MEI) are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer time period. According to the SCAQMD, HRAs, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the Project. There would be relatively few pieces of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment in operation, and the construction period would be relatively short, especially when compared to 70 years. Combined with the highly dispersive properties of diesel PM and additional reductions in exhaust emissions from improved equipment, construction-related emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. The impact would be less than significant. In terms of long-term operations, the proposed Project does not include any new sources of TACs and therefore, would not generate substantial emissions of TACs. 5.5 ODORS Project construction equipment and activities would generate odors. Primary construction odor sources include diesel exhaust emissions from equipment operating on site. There may be situations where construction activity odors would be noticeable by nearby residents, but these odors would not be unfamiliar or necessarily objectionable. The odors would be temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. Therefore, the impacts would be short-term,would not be objectionable to a substantial number of people, and would be less than significant. As discussed in the Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project No. 2-72A Technical Memorandum Number 5: Implementation Plan, odor control issues are expected to be minimal (LEE & RO 2015). The existing NHP trunk sewer does not have a permanent odor control facility and it has been confirmed that odor has not been an issue. During the design phase, LEE & RO would conduct odor samplings on the existing NHP trunk sewer. The requirements of OCSD's 2009 Facilities Master Plan for sulfide odors would be incorporated into the 24-hour liquid phase and the bi-weekly vapor phase sampling events. Current design of the sealed manholes and gas flaps would also be utilized to mitigate potential future long term odor problems. HELIX FnWronm9nMl PlemNp Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical RetM for OCSM&F Project/IR0o2/J*2015 26 6.0 GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS This section evaluates potential impacts of the proposed Project related to the generation of GHG emissions. 6.1 GHG EMISSIONS 6.1.1 Construction Emissions Project construction GHG emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod model as described in Section 4.1, Methodology. Project-specific input was based on general information provided in Section 1.0, Project Description, and default model settings to estimate reasonable worst-case conditions. Additional details of phasing, selection of construction equipment, and other input parameters, including CalEEMod data, are included in Appendix A. Emissions of GHGs related to the construction of the Project would be temporary. As shown in Table 8, Estimated Construction GHG Emissions, total GHG emissions associated with construction are estimated at 558 MT of CO2e. Table 8 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS Source Emissions T COze Northern Alignment Installation 279 Southern Alignment Installation 279 TOTAL 558 Amortized Construction Emissions 19 scarce: CalEEMcd(output data is provided in Appendix A) The total presented is the sum of the umounded values. ' Construction emissions are amortized over 30 years in accordance with SCAQMD guidance. Because GHG emission reduction measures for construction equipment are relatively limited, SCAQMD, in its Draft Guidance Document — Interim CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds, recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime and considered to be an element of operational emissions (SCAQMD 2008a). The proposed construction activities,therefore,would contribute 19 MT COze emissions per year. 6.1.2 Operational Emissions Once the Project is complete, there would be no long-term changes to the operations of the pipeline;therefore,there would be no change to existing emissions. 6.1.3 Summary As described above, construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year period and added to operational emissions. As shown in Table 9, Estimated Total Annual GHG Emissions, with HELIX FnWronmMMl PlemNp Ar Qaaby and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for OCSM&F project/IRO,02/July 2015 27 consideration of amortized construction emissions,the total annual estimated GHG emissions for the proposed Project are 19 MT CO2e per year. This value is less than the SCAQMD adopted interim threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e per year for industrial projects that is being applied to this analysis. It is accepted as very unlikely that any individual development project would have GHG emissions of a magnitude to directly impact global climate change; therefore, there would be no direct Project GHG emissions impact and any impact would be considered on a cumulative basis. Because the proposed Project's GHG emissions would be less than adopted thresholds, the emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the proposed Project's GHG emissions would result in a less than significant impact. Table 9 ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS Emissions e T Core Amortized Construction Table 8 19 TOTAL 19 SCA QMD Threshold CE A 10,000 Significant Im act? I No Source: CaIEEMod(output data is provided in Appendix A) 6.2 CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL PLANS ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING GHG EMISSIONS There are numerous state plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall state plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493), the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the statewide level; as such, compliance at a project level is not addressed. Therefore, the proposed Project does not conflict with those plans and regulations. As previously discussed, the increase in GHG emissions would be less than SCAQMD's significance threshold being applied to this analysis. Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This would represent a less than significant impact. HELIX FIWIMTAIMIPIennlip Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Repot for OCSM&F Project/IR002/July 2015 28 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 7.1 AIR QUALITY The proposed Project would comply with MM 3.2-la requiring proper maintenance of offroad engines; MM 3.2-lb restricting truck idling times; and MM 3.2-2 requiring implementation of fugitive dust control measures as prescribed in the PEIR for the Collection System Improvement Plan as prepared for the OCSD in March 2007. No additional mitigation is required. 7.2 GREENHOUSE GASES The proposed Project would not result in a significant impact with respect to GHG emissions. Therefore,no mitigation measure is required. HELIX FIWIMTAIMIPIennlip Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical RepW for OCSM&F Project/IR0o2/J*2015 29 8.0 REFERENCES California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. CAPCOA. January. htto://www.caocoa.ore/wo-contenVunloads/downloads/2010/05/CAPCOA-W hite- Paoer.odf. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2015a. Area Designations: Activities and Maps. Available at: htto://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adni/adm.htm. Accessed May 2015. 2015b Top 4 Measurements and Days Above the Standard. Available at: htto://www.mb.ca.eov/adam/tot)four/toofourl.i)b . Accessed June 2015. 2014c California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2012. May. Available at: htro://www.ub.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/g_hg inventory 00-12 report. ddf 2013a Clean Car Standards—Pavley,Assembly Bill 1493. Available at: httu://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccros/ccros.htm. Accessed September 2014. 2013b Ambient Air Quality Standards. June 4. Available at: htto://www.arb.ca.goy/reseuch/aacis/aaas2.odf. 2013c (January 29, last reviewed). Board Meetings. Sacramento, CA: GARB. http://www.arb.ca.goviboud/mectings.htm#future. 2009 ARB Fact Sheet:Air Pollution and Health. December 2. Available at: htW://www.wb.ca.gov/reseuch/bealth/fs/fsl/fsl.htm 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan—A Framework For Change. December. 2000 Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. September. California Natural Resources Agency(CNRA). 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97. CNRA. December. htto://ceres.ca.izov/cega/docs/Final Statement of Reasons.]) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farnham, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York,NY,USA. HELIX F Wro.NIPM.lq Pi QwMyand Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Repel for OCSM&F Project/IRO02/July 2015 30 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) (cont.) 2007 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers (Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Boulder, CO: IPCC, Working Group I. February. Integrated Program Management Consultants. 2007. Program Environmental Impact Report: Collection System Improvement Plan. SCH#2006101018 LEE & RO. 2015 (April 10). Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project 2-72A Technical Memorandum No. 5:Implementation Plan National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA). 2011 (January 12). NASA Research Finds 2010 Tied for Warmest Year on Record. Available: hgp://www.giss.nasa.eov/research/news/20110112/. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory(NOAA). 2015. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Boulder, CO: NOAA. Available: http//www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html. Accessed in June. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March. Available at: http://www.agmd.gov/dots/default- source/cega/handbook/seagmd-air-quali -significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 2013a California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMOd) Version 2013.2.2. Released October. 2013b (updated February). 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Available at: httn://www.ag md.gov/homeAibrarv/clean-au-plans/air-g ualiri-met-nlan/final- 2012-air-quality-management-elan 2010 (September 28). Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting#15 (slide presentation). Diamond Bar, CA. SCAQMD. htti)://www.agmd.izov/dots/default-source/cega/handbook/greenhouse-izases- %28g1h°/o29-cega-significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ -meeting 15/ hgh- meeting-l5-main-presentation.ndf?sfvrsn=2 2009 (October). Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds Look-up Tables. Available at: http://www.acimd.gov/does/default-source/cega/hmdbook/locafized-significance- thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2 2008a (October). Draft Guidance Document — Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds. HELIX 1AWro.U'PM.'q Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical RetM for OCSM&F Project/1R0a2/J*2015 31 South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). (coot.) 2008b(September). Final Report, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin, MATES III September 2008, Executive Summary. hto://www.agmd.goy/i)rdas/matcsIlPFinal/Document/ab-MATESI[I Executive Summarv-Fina192008.ndf. 2008c Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study III Model Estimated Carcinogenic Risk. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. hM://www2.ggmd.gov/web=l/matesiii/. 1993 (as amended). CEQA Air Quality Handbook. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2015. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. April 15. Available at: htto://www.eya.gov/climatechmge/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2015- Main-Text.12 2011 (November 22, last update). Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. ft://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangement/ 2007 The Effects of Air Pollutants—Health Effects. http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/eog/course422/ai)7a.html#table. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (USEPA and NHTSA). 2012 (October 15). 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Federal Register (Volume 77, No. 199, pp. 62623- 63200). Western Regional Climate Center(WRCC). 2015. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, Anaheim, California (040192). Available at: http,//www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/CIiMAIN.nI?caO 192. World Resources Institute. 2014. CAIT 2.0: Climate Data Explorer. Available at: http://cait2.wri.org/wri/. HELIX FIWIMTp1MIPlennlip Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical RepM for OCSM&F Project/1R0o2/J*2015 32 South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). (coot.) 2008b(September). Final Report, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin, MATES III September 2008, Executive Summary. hto://www.agmd.eov/i)rdas/matesIlPFinal/Document/ab-MATESI[I Executive Summarv-Fina192008.odf. 2008c Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study III Model Estimated Carcinogenic Risk. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD. hM://www2.ggmd.Lov/web=l/matesiii/. 1993 (as amended). CEQA Air Quality Handbook. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2015. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. April 15. Available at: htto://www.eya.eov/climatechmge/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2015- Main-Text.12 2011 (November 22, last update). Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. httu://www.eoa.gov/climatechan e/g endan ee xment/ 2007 The Effects of Air Pollutants—Health Effects. http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/eog/course422/ai)7a.html#table. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (USEPA and NHTSA). 2012 (October 15). 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Federal Register (Volume 77, No. 199, pp. 62623- 63200). Western Regional Climate Center(WRCC). 2015. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, Anaheim, California (040192). Available at: http,//www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/cIiMAIN.ol?ca0 192. World Resources Institute. 2014. CAIT 2.0: Climate Data Explorer. Available at: httn://cait2.wri.or wri/. HELIX FIWIMTp1MIPlennlip Pi QwMy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical RepW for OCSM&F Project/1R0o2/J*2015 32 Appendix A CALEEMOD OUTPUT CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 14 Date: 6/23/2015 11:42 AM LRO-02 OCSD Newhope Sewer Orange County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area population User Defined Industrial 1.00 User Defined Unit 0,00 0.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban wind Speed uni 2.2 Precipitation I(Days) 30 Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2018 Utility Company CO2 Intensity 0 CH4 Intensity 0 N20 Intensity 0 (Ib11111i (Ib/MWhri (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics- Land Use- Construction Phase-Start Date:July 2016. Duration: 300 working days. Off-road Equipment-Construction equipment based on info received from Lee & Ro, Inc. Trips and VMT- Daily truck trips- Each of the two locations would have 9 truck trips per day(1 for pipe delivery, 4 for spoils,4 for backfill materials). Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation- CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 14 Date: 6/23/2015 11:42 AM Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tbl0onstructionPhase NumDays i 0.00 300.00 .............................4.............................+-"---""---""-""---"-- .......................... 1bIORRoadEquipment LoadFactor i 0.38 0.38 -------.........q........._..4..............................F_____________________________a.......................... tbIOlfRoatlE ui ment Load Factor i 0.38 0.38 .............................4-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... 1bIORRoadEquipment OORoadEquipmentType i Excavators .............................4----------------------------- 4-------------------------O�om Bmms - pment ----------------- i Signal ..... 1bIORRoadEquipmenl OffRoadEqu--------------- - i OR-Highway Trucks ----- -----------------------------i---------!Equip ent!Jd --------------------------------------4.......................... tbIOlfRoatlEqu..... Of------ -----l----- ---unt i 1.00 0.00 1bIORRoadEqu.....pmen Of------ -----t----- ---unt i 1.00 0.00 .............................i---------!Equip ent!Jd --------}_____________________________4.......................... tbIOlfRoatlEquipment OffRoatlEquipmenlUnitAmount i 2.00 0.00 .......................------.-----------------------------+-"-----"---"-----"---"--4.......................... iblProjedCharactenstica OperalionalVear i 2014 2018 .............................i---------aulin---g-rripNumber-----------------}______________0___0.0 ____________4.......................... tblTripsMtlVMT H i............................. 4--------------------------------------------------------- tbiTrip&AndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 1.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 14 Date: 6/23/2015 11:42 AM 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG I NOx I CO I 502 I Fugifive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 N13ic-0O2 TotsICO2 CH4 I N20 1 002. PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year IWday IWday 2016 I 1.1807 1130427 9.0634 1 0,0207 I 03938 04882 1 0.8820 I 0,1031 04514 05544 • 0.0000 12.058]5212.058]521 0.3939 1 0.0000 12,067023 .I 1I 0 I 0 6 i i i i i 1 I i 1 •I 1 I I I I i ___---- •I-------'------- _-------'-------'-------,-------'-------'------- --------------- _______1 _ _ _ _ _I 201] 1.1059 111.9137 1 8.7458 I 0.0207 I 0.3394 1 0.K24 I 0.]818 I 0.0897 1 0.4093 1 0.4990 • 0.0000 I2,024.431 i 2,024.431 i 0.3932 1 0.0000 12,032.687 2 I 2 I i i 9 1 Total 2.2865 1 24.9564 1 17.8092 1 0.0414 1 0.7332 0.9308 I 1.6638 I 0.1928 j 0.8608 I 1.0534 • 0.0000 14,083.18314,083.1831 0.]8]1 1 0.0000 4,099.711 2 2 5 Mitigated Construction ROG; NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive ExHaast PM25 Bio-CO2 NSio-0O2 Total G02 CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 TMaI PM2.5 PM2.5 Total You, IWday Wday 2016 I 1.180] 113.042] 9.0634 I 0.0207 I 0.3938 0.4882 1 0.8820 I 0.1031 0.4514 0.5544 • 0.0000 12,058.75212,058.7521 0.3939 0.0000 121067.023 'I I I I I I • I •I 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 6 ...........•I-------a.____._a__._.__a_._.__.a_______ -------a-------a-------j_______-._._.._�...66;-1 201] 1.1059 1 11.9137 j 8.7458 1 0.0207 1 0.3394 0."24 1 0.7818 1 0.0897 1 0.4093 OA990 • 0.0000 12,02443112,024.4311 0.393E 1 0.0000 2,032.687 i i i 1 i i 2 i 2 i i 1 9 Total 2.2866 j 24.9564 j 17.8092 0.0614 0.7132 0.9306 1.6638 0.1928 j 0.8606 1 1.0534 • 0.0000 14,083.183 4,083.183 0.T8T1 0.0000 14,099.T11 11 3 2 5 ROG NOx CO 902 Fugitive Exhauet PM1O Fugitive Exhauat PM2.5 Be..CO2 NBi.S02 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 om 0.00 0.00 000 Reduction CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 14 Date: 6/23/2015 11:42 AM 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx I 00 I 502 I Fugitive Exbaun PM10 Fugitive Exbaust PM2.5 E' . NBio-002 ToWICO2 GMN20 002. PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total category IWday IWday Area n 1 GOON- ; 0 woo 1 0000e- ; 0.0000 ' 00000 ' O.000O ' 0 WOO ; O.000O 2 200 , 1 2.2000e- ; 0 0000 ' 2.3000e- •I 005 I ON I i i i ' ON I 004 I i i 004 -------_------- -------- ' I I Energy o.DDoo ' o.000D ' 0.0000 ' 0,0000 ' ' 0.0000 ' D.DDDo ' ' 0.000 D.DDoo I 0.0000 ' D.oaao ' o.aooD ' 0.0000 D.Doao •I -------------- •I I I I I I I ' I I I Mobile 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' O.000D ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' O.OD00 ; 0.0000 • I 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' O.OD00 ' i 0.0000 I Total 1.00000- 0.0000 1.00000- 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.000D 0.0000 ' 0.0000 • ' 2.2000e- 2.2000e- ' 0.0000 0.0000 2.O000e- 11 005 ON 000 004 004 Mitigated Operational ROG I NO. CO 502 I Fugitive ExbauM PM10 Fugitive Effiauat P. Bio-CO2 NBia-0O2 T.WICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Wday Wday Area 1 0000e- ' 0 0000 1 0000e- ' a 0000 ' 0 0000 ' 00000 ' 0 0000 ; 0 0000 2 2000e- ' 2 2000e- ' 0 0000 j 2 3000e- :i 005 I 004 i i i i 004 i 004 i i 004 ...........a_-----------____-------_-----------------------_-------_-------_----------------- .......I-------.---------------.--------------- Energy •I 0.000o 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000o I 0.0000 OOM 0.0000 0.0000 00000 ; ...........a_______ _______________________I-------_-------_-------_--------_.......................1-------.---------------'______ Mobile •I 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � O.OIpO i 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • I 0.0000 � O.OIpO � 0.0000 00000 OOOOo Tool 1.000Oe- 1 MOO 1.0000e- ' 0.0000 1 D.DeDD D.DDDD ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 , 2.2000e- ' 2.2000e- 1 0.0000 0.0000 ' 2.3DDDe- 00s ON 004 000 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 14 Date: 6/23/2015 11:42 AM ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PiBio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total COT CHd N20 CO2e PM10 PiTotal Pi Phi Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Retluctian 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 :Grading :Grading •71112016 •8124/2017 5• 300• Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating—sgft) OffRoad Equipment Phase Name ORroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading IExcavatom 1! 8 ool 162: 0.38 Grading (Signal Boards 2i 8.001 6• 0.82 ............................t---_......_...._._.._._...�__________.._..�_. l ____________;...._......... Gratling ...Highway Tucks 1! 4.00� 600- 0.38 Grading (Concrete.... .. Saws 0 B.00I 81; 0.73 ............................` libber....._...._......_...t��_��___��_�_.__________l ____________ : ...._......... Gratling .Rubber Tired Dozers OII. ...I 256' 0.60 -------------- Gratling •TractorslLoaderslBackhoes 0• 6.00• 97• 0.37 Trios and VMT CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 14 Date: 6/23/2015 11:42 AM Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Tdp Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Tdp Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number LengM Length Length Class VehiGe Class Vehicle Class Grading 4• 10.00• 1.00: 2,400.00• 1470• 6.90• 20.01_Mix :HDT_Mix •HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads 3.2 Grading -2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG IN x CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NNi CO2 Tate CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 TOUT PM25 PM25 TOUI Category Ibltlay Iblday Fugitive Dust •I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 00000 ' 0.0000 00000 _______ _______—___. ____�•_______II1 JIII1 ______ 1 _______II ____ .__ 1,346.2WOtt-Ra_d 'I 0.9]82 __064I 6.5 2 0 0133 0 4528 04528 041s8 0418 11,338.1341,338.1341 0_.__4_ 2 21 ] Total 0.9782 10.6249 6.5872 0.0133 0.0000 04528 04528 0.0000 0.4188 04188 1,3328.1341,338.13 031 1,36]2 11 2 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 14 Date: 6/23/2015 11:42 AM 3.2 Grading - 2016 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG I NOx 1 CO 1 502 I Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitve ExM1aust PM2.5 Blo-0O2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Tolal PM2.5 PM2.5 Twat Category IWday IWday Hauling a 0.1563 22800 1 1,8362 1 58700e- I 02756 0,0332 1 0.3090 1 00717 1 0.0306 ; 0,1022 • 1591 X680 15916580 42700, I i 591,7477 003 I i i i 1 I 003 I 1 .I i I ___________•1 -------__________ ______1-------1-------a_______r______ 00 Ventlot 9.6900e- I 0. 05 1 0.1228 1 2.1000e- 16.2500o- 11.3900e- I ].6300e- 11.]BOOe- 1 1 2Oe]O - ; 3.OSOOe- • 1215030 21.5030 1.6000e- I i 21.5064 .I 003 I I ONI 003 I 003 I 003 I 003 003 003 1 ON I 1 •I I I I 1 I I i • I I Wotket 0.0365 1 0.0493 1 0.5171 1 1.2800e- I 0.1118 1 7.8000e- I 0.1126 1 0.0256 ]2000e- ; 00 10].4 304 • 110].45681 5681 5.3400e- I i 107.5888 I I 003 I I 004 I I i 004 I i 003 I 1 I Total 0.2025 j 2.4178 I 2A762 17.3000e- 1 0.3938 1 0.0354 1 OA292 1 0.1031 0.0326 1 0.1355 1 1 720.6179 I 720.6179 j 9.7700> 1 720.8229 11 003 ON Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Iladay Iblday Fugitive Dual 1 1 00090 j 00000 1 00000 1 00000 00000 ; 00000 • j 00000 0.000U • I I 1 1 1 1 I ..a .I 7 Off-Road •I 09]82 1108249 8.5872 00133 04528 10.4528 04188 OA188 00000 11,338.134: 1,338.134f 0.3841 1,346.200 2 1 2 � I I 6 i Total 0.9782 10.6249 1 6.5872 1 0.0133 1 0.0000 OA628 1 11A528 1 0.0000 0.4188 1 OA1B8 1 0.0000 1,338.13411,338.134 0.3841 1 1,348.200 11 2 2 6 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 14 Date: 6/23/2015 11:42 AM 3.2 Grading - 2016 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG I NOx 1 CO 1 502 I Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitve ExM1aust PM2.5 Blo-0O2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Tolal PM2.5 PM2.5 Twat Category IWday IWday Hauling a 0.1563 22800 1 1,8362 1 58700e- I 02756 0,0332 1 0.3090 1 OII117 1 0.0306 0,1022 • 1591 X680 15916580 42700, I i 591,7477 003 I i i i 1 I 003 I 1 .I i I ___________•1 -------__________ ______1-------1-------a_______r______ 00 Ventlol 9.6900e- I 0. 05 1 0.1228 1 2.100 0o- 6300 0e- 16.250 11.3900e- I ]. e- 11.]BOOe- 1 1 2Oe]O - 3.OSOOe- • 1215030 21.5030 1.6000e- I i 21.5064 .I 003 I I ONI 003 I 003 I 003 I 003 003 003 1 ON I 1 •I I I I 1 I I i • I I Woder 0.0365 1 0.0493 1 0.5171 1 1.2800e- I 0.1118 1 7.8000e- I 0.1126 1 0.0296 ]2000e- 00 iW.4 304 • 110].45681 5681 5.3400e- I i 107.5688 I I 003 I I 004 I I i 004 I i 003 I 1 I Total 0.2025 j 2.4178 I 2A702 17.30000- 1 0.3938 1 0.0354 1 OA292 1 0.1031 0.0326 1 0.1358 • 1 720.6179 I 720.6179 j 9.7700> 1 720.8229 11 003 ON 3.2 Grading -2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Iladay Iblday Fugitive Dual 1 1 00090 00000 1 00000 1 00000 00000 00000 • j 00000 0.000U • i I I 1 1 1 1 I ..� a • a ; a • -I I 1 I i Off-Road •I 09189 f 9.BW5 6.3948 00133 04f 00 I 0.4f 00 I 0.3)94 00]9d 11,318087: 1,3180871 0.3839 1,326.148 i Total 0.910 sW5 1 6.300 1 0.0130 1 0.0000 OA100 1 OA100 1 0.0000 0.3794 I 0.3794 1 1,37118711,318.087 0.3839 1 1,328.1/8 1 5 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 14 Date: 6/23/2015 11:42 AM 3.2 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG I NOx 1 CO 1 502 I Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitve ExM1aust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TotaICO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Tolal PM2.5 PM2.5 Twat Category IWday Iblday Hauling n 0.1468 20909 1 17644 1 58700e- I 02214 0,0304 1 0.2518 1 00583 1 0.0280 ; 00863 1581.89451 5818945 4.1900, I i 5819826 003 I i i i 1 I 003 I 1 -I i •I I I I I I I I • I I ___________•1 ____ _ ______x-------a-------x_______r______ OB Ventlot 8.9100e- I O. OS 1 0.1185 1 2.1000e- 16.2500o- 11.2400e- I ].4900e- 11.]BOOe- 1 1.1400e- ; 2.9200e- • 121.1528 1 21.1526 1 1.5000e- I i 21.1551t .I •I 003 I I 004 I 003 I 003 I 003 I 003 003 0031 0--- 04 I 1 I I I 1 I I i • I I Wotket 0.0332 1 0.0448 1 0.4703 1 1.2800e- I 0.1118 1 7.8000e- I 0.1125 1 0.0298 7.1000e- ; 00304 • 1103.2970 1103.2970 14.9500e- I i 103.4010 � I I 003 I I 004 I I i 004 I i 003 I 1 I Total 0.1889 j 2.2152 I 2.3512 17.3500.- 1 0.3394 1 0.0324 1 0.3718 1 0.0897 0.0298 1 0.1195 • 1 706.3442 17061 1 9.2900. I 7061 11 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive ExM1auet PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category Iladay Iblday F,,i Dual 1 1 00090 00000 1 00000 1 00000 00000 ; 00000 • j 00000 0.000U • i I I 1 1 1 1 I ..a 9.B )94 .I 7 Off-Road •I 09189 f W5 8.3948 00133 04100 10.4100 0.3 03]9d 0.0000 11,31808]� 1,31508)i 0.3839 1 I 5 i Total 0.9169 0.6976 1 6.39" 1 0.0133 1 0.0000 OA100 1 OA100 1 0.0000 0.37" 0.3104 • 0.0000 1,318.08111,318.087 0.3839 1 1,328.148 5 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 14 Date: 6/23/2015 11:42 AM 3.2 Grading - 2017 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG I NOx 1 CO 1 S02 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitve ExM1aust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TOIaICO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Tolal PM2.5 PM2.5 Twat Category IWday IWday Hauling n 0.1468 1 20909 I 1,7644 158]00e- I O2 14 1 0.0304 I 0.2518 I O0583 1 0.0280 00863 1581.8945 1 581 8945 i 4.1900, I 15819826 003 I i i i I I 1 003 I I .I i •I I I I I I I • I • I I ___________•I a_______1_______'_______a_______a_______a_______a_______�__________92__ _ ______x-------a-------x_______r______ OB Ventlol 8.9100e- l O. OS I 0.1185 12.100 0o- 00e-0e- i 6.250 11.24 i ].4900e- i 1.78O0e- 1 1.1400e- 2. 00e- • 121.1528 121.1526 11.5000e- I 121.i55B .I •I 003 I I I 004 I 003 I 003 I 003 I 003 003 --- I I 004• I I Woder 0.0332 I 0.0448 I 0.4703 11.2800e- i 0.1118 I ].B000e- i 0.1125 I 0.0298 1 ].1000e- 00304 • 1103.297O i 103.297O l 4.9500e- I 1103.4010 I I I 003 I I 004 I I i 004 I I 003 I I I Total 0.1889 j 2.2152 I 2.3512 17.3000.- I 0.339d I 0.0324 I 0.3718 I 0.0897 0.0298 1 0.1195 • 1708.3442 17001 1 9.2900. I 7081 11 003 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NO. CO 1 S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitiva Exdauat PM2ii Blo-0O2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 G02e PM10 PM10 TMaI PM2.5 PM2.5 TassI Category Wday IWda, MNgatetl O.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I O.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I O.OWO 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 00000 •I I I I I I I I i I I I j 1 I I I I I I • I I 1 I .._.-4._.. _I .._.I-._.._-4.. ._I .._I-.. .i.. ..-4 .. • • .{-.. ..1- ..-4 .. _I ..• Unmi0getetl 0.0000 00000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 14 Date: 6/23/2015 11:42 AM 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMr User Defned Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.3 Trip Type Information Mlles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C HA or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by User Defined Industrial 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 000 0 0 0 L1 LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCV SBUS MH 0.50011• 0,056836• 0,192178• 0.151564• 0,041643• 0005905• 0.015642• 0.015146• 0.001440• 0.002149: 0.004721: 0.000504: 0.002262 �.Q�ggjpypetail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NO. CO I 502 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 T.WCO2 CH4 N20 002s PM10 PM10 TOUI PM2S PM2.5 TOUI Category lNday May NalumlGas v 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 00000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 1 0.0000 00000 Miligatetl NaluralGas •• 00000 O.OD00 0.0000 00000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 0.0000 00000 unmiogatea CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 14 Date: 6/23/2015 11:42 AM 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 FPM10 Exhaust PM10 OW1 Fugitive Exhaust PMGjai.- io-0O2 ToteI CO2 CH6 N20 CO2e sUse PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 xhaus TO Land Use kBTUNr Iblday Idday User Defined 0 n 0.0000 0.0000 OOOOD OD000 00000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O.00DO 0.0000 IndusMal i Total • 0.0000 1 0.0000 ' O.OWO 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 ' 0.0000 O.000o Mitigated Natu.IGe ROG NOx 00 S02 Fugftive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e sues PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Land Use kBTUNr Ib/tley Ib/tley user Defined 0 o DODO 0 0000 0 GOOD a DDOO 0 0000 a ODDD 0 0000 a ODOO • E a DOW 0 0000 0 0000 a DODO o D000 IndusMal I Total O.D000 ' 0.0000 1 0.000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 1 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 • O,ODDO 0.0000 ' 0.0000 1 o.agg0 D.DDoo 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 14 Date: 6/23/2015 11:42 AM ROG NO. CO 502 Fu9i4ve Exhaust PM10 FugiOve ExM1ausl PM2.5 F- 7:Oa CO2 CH4 N20 002. PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total category Ii IWeay Mitigatetl n 1 0000e- ; 00000 1 0000, ; 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0.0000 - 1 0.0000 ' ' 23000e- 005 I 004 I i i ' 004 I 00a I i 004 I I ' •I I ___________ .. ._..--._______ _______L---_..ti-..-�.._.--g--.. ______ Unmitigated •• 1.WOOe- • 0.0000 • 10000e- 0.0000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 00000 3.2000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 2.3000e- 005 004 004 004 004 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 N8io-0O2 Total CO2 CHO N20 CO2e PMiO PM10 Total PM2S PM2.5 Total SubCategory lWday lWday Consumer I 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 Produce -•a aI aI a� aI 1 aI aI I.......................' Len 1.0000e- 0.0000 10000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000 0.0000 I 2.20Wa I 2.2000a- II 0.000I 1 2.3000e- 004 ArchOecNrel0.000050 0II I 00 . I I . � 00 i O ------- -------i_______i_______ .......I I I I 00000 0 0000 0000 0.0000 0.0oco 0.00 0 Coating Total 1.0000e- 0.0000 10000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • ' 2.2000e- 2.2000e- 0.0000 ' 2.3000e- o0s ooa ONooa ooa CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 14 Date: 6/23/2015 11:42 AM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Mitigated ROG NO. CO 502 Fugitve EMaua PM10 Fugitive Exbausl PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBic-002 Told CO2 CMN20 1 002a PM10 PM10 Tolal PM2.5 PM2.5 Tolal SubCategory Ibltlay Ibltlay Consumer I O.0000 1 00000 I 0.0000 I I 0woo � 0.0000 1 00000 I 1 00000 Proau dt i i I i i I I I I I I q 1 I I I • � I I I I I I • • _♦ _� _� _� _� _� _i_______ _______�_______I ______ ______ _______I ______ I I I 00 0 Lantlscaping v 1.WOOe- I O.W00 1 10 0000e- i 0.0000 I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 0.0000 12.2000e- i 2.2000e- I 0.0000 I 12.3000e- 005 I i 00 I i I i I - I -- --I I I I • 'I I I I I I I • I I I ArMOectu2l v 0.0000 I I I I I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I I 0.0000 � 0.0000 • I 0.0000 I I I 0.0000 coating i i i I I TZI 1.0000e- I 0.0000 1.0000a- I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 • 12.2000e- 12.2000e- I 0.0000 2.3000e- 005 000 000 006 000 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM LRO-02 OCSD Newhope Sewer Orange County,Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area population User Defined Industrial 1.00 User Defined Unit 0,00 0.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban wind Speed(ri 2.2 Precipitation Freq(Days) 30 Climate Zone 8 Operational Year 2018 Utility Company CO2 Intensity 0 CH4 Intensity 0 N20 Intensity 0 (Ib11111i (Ib/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics- Land Use- Construction Phase-Start Date:July 2016. Duration: 300 working days. Off-road Equipment-Construction equipment based on info received from Lee & Ro, Inc. Trips and WIT- Daily truck trips- Each of the two locations would have 9 truck trips per day(1 for pipe delivery, 4 for spoils,4 for backfill materials). Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation- CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tbl0onstructionPhase NumDays i 0.00 300.00 .............................4.............................+-"---""---""-""---"-- .......................... 1bIORRoadEquipment LoadFactor i 0.38 0.38 -------.........q........._..4..............................F_____________________________a.......................... tbIOlfRoatlE ui ment Load Factor i 0.38 0.38 .............................4-----------------------------------------------------------4.......................... 1bIORRoadEquipment OORoadEquipmentType i Excavators .............................4----------------------------- 4-------------------------O�om Bmms - pment ----------------- i Signal ..... 1bIORRoadEquipmenl OffRoadEqu--------------- - i OR-Highway Trucks ----- -----------------------------i---------!Equip ent!Jd --------------------------------------4.......................... tbIOlfRoatlEqu..... Of------ -----l----- ---unt i 1.00 0.00 1bIORRoadEqu.....pmen Of------ -----t----- ---unt i 1.00 0.00 .............................i---------!Equip ent!Jd --------}_____________________________4.......................... tbIOlfRoatlEquipment OffRoatlEquipmenlUnitAmount i 2.00 0.00 .......................------.-----------------------------+-"-----"---"-----"---"--4.......................... iblProjedCharactenstica OperalionalVear i 2014 2018 .............................i---------aulin---g-rripNumber-----------------}______________0___0.0 ____________4.......................... tblTripsMtlVMT H i............................. 4--------------------------------------------------------- tbiTrip&AndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 1.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBic-0O2 TotsICO2 CH4 N20 002. PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Year bnsl}n 64r/yr 2016 n O.W69 1 08571 0.5905 1 1360Oe- I 00253 00320 1 0.0573 1 66400e- ,i 00296 0.0362 • 0.0000 11224836 122,4835I 002, 0.0000 11229749 003 I i i 003 1 ____•I USX _______-_______ -------�-------1 201USX1 1.0100 1 0.7349 1 1.75O0e- I 0.0282 1 0.0374 1 0.0858 1 7.4600e- I 0.0346 0.0420 • 0.0000 1155.3783 1155.3]831 0.0301_1 0.0000 i 1560092 I I I 003 I ; I I 003 I � I I ToMI 0.1699 1 1.8671 1.32% 1 3.1100b 1 0.0535 0.0664 1 0.1229 1 0.0141 0.0641 0.0]82 • 0.0000 1 2]].8598 1 2]].85981 0.0535 0.0000 278.9841 003 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive EAnaast PM25 No-CO2 NSio-0O2 Total CO2 I CH4 I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Veer tonsfyr Mrlyr 2016 •I 0.0]fi9 I 0.8571 0.5905 11.3600e- I 0.0253 0.0320 I 0.0573 16.6400a- 0.0296 0.0362 • 0.0000 1 122.4811 1122.4834 I 0.0234 0.0000 1 122.9]48 I i 003 I I I I 003 ........... 1-------a_______a_______•_______a------- -------a-------a-------a_______-._._.._........I 201] 0.0930 j 1.0100 j 0.7349 j 1.]SOOe- j 0.0282 1 0.0374 j 0.0656 j 7.4600e- ; 0.0346 0.0420 • 0.0000 1155.3762 j 155.3762 j 0.0301 j 0.0000 1 156.0091 i 003 i I 003 I i I Total 0.1699 j 1.8671 j 1.3256 j 3.1100e- 0.0535 0.0694 0.1229 0.0141 j 0.11641 1 0.0782 • 0.0000 12T.8596 j 2]].85% j 0.0535 1 0.0000 1278.9839 003 ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive EZM1aust PM10 Fugitive ExM1auat PM2.5 BioCO2 NBioS02 I Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 000 Reduction CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NO. CO I 502 I Fugitve Exbaun PM10 Fugitive Exbaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 Mrry NBio-002 TorWICO2 CMN20 002. PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total caraeo�y toae/y, r Area n 0.0000 ' 00000 10000e- l 0.0000 ' 00000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 ; 0.0000 • 00000 t 20000e- l 2.0000a- I 00000 0.0000 i 30000a- a 005 t i i i ' 005 t 005 t t 005 •t t t t t t t _______________ ___________ •' ' t t Enegy 0.0000 ' O.W00 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' ' 0.0000 ; 0.0000 0.0000 t 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 i 0.0000 •t •t t t t t t t ' t t t Moblle •t 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' O.000D ' 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 t 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 i 0.0000 •t •t t t t t t t t t t 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' ' 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ' 00000 t 0.0000 ' OOOOD ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 00000 •t •t t t t t t t • t t o.0000 ' o.0000 ' ' o.0000 o.0000 o.0000 t o.0000 ' o.oa ' o.0000 ' o.0000 � o.00 i t t t t t oo t aot t Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ' 2.0000e- 2.o000a- 0.0000 0.0000 INN.- 005 005 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NO. CO I 502 I Fugitive Exhaun PM10 Fugitive ExM1ausl P102.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-002 TotWICO2 01-4 1 N20 1 002. PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total carei toeary, Mrryr Area n 0.0000 ' 00000 10000e- l 0.0000 ' 00000 ' 0.0000 ' 00000 ; 0.0000 • 00000 i 20000> l 2.0000e- I 00000 0.0000 i 30000e- 005 I i i i ' 005 I 005 I I 005 _______________ ________n__e •' E ' gy O.00oO ' o.W00 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' ' 0.0000 ; O.00oO 0.0000 i 0.0000 ' O.o000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 i O.OooO a •i i i i i i ' Moblle v 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' O.o00D ' 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 i 0.0000 a 0.0g00 ' O.00g0 ' ' 0.o0g0 ; O.0go0 ' o0gg0 i D.o00g ' 00000 ' 0.0ogg ' 0.0000 i 00000 a i i i ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ' o.oaoo ' o.0000 ' 0.0000 I o.0000 I Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 ' 2.0000e- 2.0000a- 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 005 005 0. ROG NO% LO 802 FugIfto E uauat PM1Y Fugltive ExM1ausi PM3.5 8Io-L03 NBio-L02 TMeI CO2 LH6 N30 L03e PMlo PM10 Total PM2.5 1`142.5 Total Percent 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase I Phase Name Phase Type Stall Dale End Date Num Days I Num Days Phase Description Number Week 1 :Grading :Grading •71112016 •B12412017 5• 300• Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating -sgft) OffRoad Eauioment Phase Name Of road Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading )Excavators , it 8.001 162: 0.38 .................. ..........:...........................____..__.._..___�__________ Grading )Signal Boards 2 800l 6• 0.82 ............................t..._......_...._......_...t_____.._..__.._..y ___________;_____________4........... ... Gratling -Ctf-Highway Trucks 1! 4.001 400' 0.38 ............. _._.._._...�____----------{_.__________._____________4...._......... Grading )Concrete Saws -- 800---. 81• 0.73 ............................t...........................libber __________0 r 4...._......... Gratling -Rubber Tired Dozers r 0� --- 255' 0.40 radmg .......................T.._...._._...._...._._.._r_________________ ___.____._._—____________ _......... Gratling •TraclorslLoaderslBackhoes 0• 600• 97• 0.37 Trios and VMT Phase Name DRroad Equipment I Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Class Vehicle Class Grading 4• 10.00• 1.00: 2,400.00• 14.70• 6,90• 20.00:LD_Mix :HDT_Mix •HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Water Exposed Area Clean Paved Roads CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 3.2 Grading - 2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TOISICO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total Phi PM2.5 TWaI Category tone, MT/p Fugitive Oust I 1 00000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 00wit 0.0000 1 00000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 00wit 00000 I 0.0000 1 00000 I I I I I I I I ,I i I , --- ______ •I ______ _______1_______'_______ _______i_______ _______ _______�_______________-_______ Ott-Road 0.0841 0.6959 I 0.4315 18.]000e- I 0.0297 I 0.029] I 0.@]4 0.0274 • 0.0000 I ]9512] 179.5127 I 0.0228 I 0.0000 1 79.9921 � I I 004 I Total 0.0"1 0.059 I OA315 10.7000e- I 0.0000 0.0297 I 0.0297 I 0.0000 0.0274 1 0.0274 • 0.0000 179.5127 179.512] 0.0228 I 0.0000 79.9921 11 004 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NO CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Thal Category tonslyr Mrly Heulilg v 0.0100 0.1519 I 0.1167 13.9000a- I 0.0177 2.1700e- I 0.0199 14.6100e- 2.0000o- ; 6.6100e- • 0.0000 135.20&t 135.2054 2.5000e- I 0.0000 135.2107 •' I 004 I 003 I I 003 003 003 ' 004 i i I---VWe-ordkoera-•II-------';1-------'I-------'I-------eI-------'I------ I ---eI --.-----' --- - � -----•i-- 1--_--- a __---_;1__-----iI --_ II - r 6.1000a- 5.9100o- 7.72o- 1.000e- 4.000Oo- 9.0o- 4.9[400 2000a- 8.00o- 2.000e- 0.0000 I 1.2840 1.260 1.000Oo- 0.0000 1.2U2 004 03 003 005 00 0 004 005 000 0 a a a -- a -- a - a -- a a _______ -- .I 2.2400e ; 3.3100e- 1 0.0346 1 9.000Oe- 1 7.1900o- 1 5.000Oo- 1 ].2600e- 1 1.9100e- j 5.000Oo- ; 1.9600e- • 0.0000 I 6.4813 1 6.4813 ; 3.2000e- 1 0.0000 6.48B0 003 I 003 1 1 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 1 003 i 005 003 1 I 004 1 I Total 0.0129 0.1612 0.1590 4.9000e- 0.0253 2.3130 - 0.0276 6.6400e- 2.13UOe- 8.]]00e- • 0.0000 142.9707 42.9707 5.8000o- 0.0000 142.9829 11 004 003 00$ 003 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 3.2 Grading - 2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TOISICO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total Phi PM2.5 TWaI Category Wive r MT/p Fugitive Oust I 1 00000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 00wit 0.0000 1 00000 • 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 00wit 00000 I 0.0000 1 00000 I I I I I I I I ,I i I , --- ______ •I ______ _______1_______'_______ _______i_______ _______ _______�_______-_______�_______ Ott-Road 0.0841 0.6959 I 0.4315 18.]000e- I 0.029] I 0.029] I 0.@]4 0.02]4 • 0.0000 I 795128 I 79.5126 I 0.0228 I 0.0000 1 79.9920 � I I 004 I Total 0.0"1 0.059 I OA315 18.7000e- I 0.0000 0.0297 I 0.0297 I 0.0000 0.0274 1 0.0274 • 0.0000 179.5126 179.5125 0.0228 I 0.0000 79.99" 11 004 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NO CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Thal Category tonslyr Mrly Heulilg v 0.0100 0.1519 I 0.1167 13.9000a- I 0.01]] 2.170e- I 0.0199 14.6100e- 2.0000o- ; 6.6100e- • 0.0000 135.20&t 135.2054 2.5000e- I 0.0000 135.2107 •' I 004 I 003 I I 003 003 003 ' 004 i i I---VWe-ordkoera-•II-------';1-------'I-------'I-------eI-------'I------ I ---eI --.-----' --------�'------•i-- 1--_--- a __---_;1__-----iI --_ II - r 6.1000a- 5.9100o- ].]2o- 1.000e- 4.000Oo- 9.0o- 4.9[400 2000a- 8.00o- 2.000e- 0.0000 I 1.2840 1.260 1.000Oo- 0.0000 1.2U2 004 03 003 005 00 0 004 005 000 0 a a a -- a -- a - a -- a a _______ -- .I 2.2400e ; 3.3100e- 1 0.0346 1 9.000Oe- 1 7.1900o- 1 5.000Oo- 1 ].2600e- 1 1.9100e- j 5.000Oo- ; 1.9600e- • 0.0000 I 6.4813 1 6.4813 ; 3.2000e- 1 0.0000 6.48B0 003 I 003 1 1 005 1 003 1 005 1 003 1 003 i 005 003 1 I 004 1 I Total 0.0129 0.1612 0.1590 4.9000e- 0.0253 2.3130 - 0.0276 6.6400e- 2.13UOe- 8.]]00e- • 0.0000 142.970] 42.9T0] 5.8000o- 0.0000 142.9829 11 004 003 00$ 003 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 3.2 Grading - 2017 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TOISICO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total Pli PM2.5 TWaI Category tone, MT/p Fugitive Wet 00000 0.0000 II 00000II 0000 0.0000 00000 -, 0.0000 I 00000I 0000 00000 I 0.0000 I 00000 ___ ____ ______ __ ------ ------- ------- _ O_tt- OOU7 0.0321Rod •IO.OT/5 089 03 1.130e- 003 000 1101.0407 1101.0407 I 0.0294 I 0.0000 i 101,6587 I I 003 I Total 0.11M 0.8194 I 0.5403 11.1300e- I 0.0000 0.0347 I 0.0347 I 0.0000 0.0321 0.0321 • 0.0000 1101.0"7 1101.0907 0.0294 I 0.0000 101.6587 003 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NO CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 910-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tonslYr Mrly Heulilg v 0.0121 0.1798 I 0.1445 15.0000a- I 0.0184 2.5700e- I 0.0210 14.8500e- 2.3600e- ; 7.2100e- • 0.0000 1416682 144.6682 3.2000e- I 0.0000 144.6749 •' I ...VW.e.on.rdk.oer....-•II 1 I i I 0 .I I 003I .I 003 003 003i I1 ONa_ I a ________e_______e___--__ ----------------------- --------------- ..._._.,.. ______ . ______ _______iI______ r 7.3000a- 6.900o- 9.0. o- 2.000Oe- 5.2000o- 1.000Oo- 6.2000e- 1.5000a- 1.000Oo- 2.6000e- 0.0000 1 1.6295 1.6295 1.0000o- 0.0000 iII 1..62% 006 003 003 00500400 ON 006 00 000 005 a a -- a -- a - a -- a a _______ -- .I 2.6200e j 3.8800e- j 0.0406 j 1.1000e- j 9.2800e- j 6.0000o- j 9.3600e- j 2.4600e- j 6.0000o- ; 2.5200e- • 0.0000 I 8.0378 j 8.0378 j 3.8000e- j 0.0000 8.0458 003 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 I i i i i i i i i i i i Total 0.0155 0.1906 0.190 6.3000e- 0.0282 2.70Me- 0.0309 7.4600e- 2.5300e- 9.9700e- • 0.0000 154.3356 54.3356 7.1000o- 0.0000 156.3505 11 004 003 003 003 003 ON CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 3.2 Grading - 2017 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TOISICO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total Phi PM2.5 TWaI Category WOW, MT/p Fugitive Wet 00000 1 0.0000 II 00000II 0000 0.0000 00000 0.0000 I 00000I 0000 00000 I 0.0000 I 0000 ___ _____ ______ __ ______ _______ _______ __x_______ -------a-------r______ O_tt- 0047 0.0321Rod •I0.07]5 089 _ 03 1.130e- 003 000 1101.0408 i 101.0406 I 0.0294 I 0.0000 1101.8586 I I I 003 I Total 0.OM 0.8194 I 0.5403 11.1300e- I 0.0000 0.0347 I 0.0347 I 0.0000 0.0321 0.0321 • 0.0000 1101.0406 1101.0906 0.0294 I 0.0000 101.6588 00] Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NO CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Blo-CO2 NBio-CO2 TotaICO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tonsi Mrly Heuh, v 0.0121 0.1798 I 0.1445 I 5.0000a- I 0.0184 2.5700e- I 0.0210 14.8500e- 2.3600e- ; 7.2100e- • 0.0000 140.6682 144.6682 3.2000e- I 0.0000 144.6749 •' I ---VW-e-on-rdk-oer-----•II 1 I i I 0 eI I 003I eI 003 003 -� 003i I1 ONa- I a '-------'------ -- - -------'-- ------- -------'------- '- -- 1--_--- a __---_ __-----iI------- r 7.3000a- 6.900o- 9.4o- 2.00OOe- 5.2000o- 1.0000e, 6.2000e- 1.5OOOa- 1.00OOo- 2.tOOOe- 0.0000 I 1.6295 1.6295 1.00OOo- 0.0000 iII 1-.62% 006 003 003 00500400 ON 006 00 000 005 a a -- a -- a - a -- a a _______ -- .I 2.6200e j 3.88OOo- 1 0.0406 1 1.1000e- 1 9.2800o- 1 6.0000o- 1 9.3600e- 1 2.4600e- j 6.0000o- ; 2.5200e- • 0.0000 I 8.0378 1 8.0378 j 3.8OOOo- 1 0.0000 8.0458 003 003 004 003 005 003 003 005 003 004 I i i i i i i i i i i i Total 0.0155 0.1906 0.190 6.3000e- 0.0282 2.70Me- 0.0309 7.4600e- 2.5300e- 9.9700e- • 0.0000 154.3356 54.3356 7.1000o- 0.0000 156.3505 11 004 003 003 003 003 ON 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive ExM1aust PM10 Fugitve ExM1aust PM2.5 F.000000. 02 TotaICO2 CM N20 CO2s PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 TWaI Category tonelyr MT/, Miligatetl n 00000 00000 0.0000 00000 00000 0.0000 oei 00wit 0.0000 00000 00000 00000 0.0000 I 00000 ------------ i i i i i i i i unmltlgMea •• o.oaao 0.000 0.0000 o.00go 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 o.00go 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0o000 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip% Trip Purpose% Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by User Defined Industrial 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 000 0 0 0 L51 0,056836•LDT7 LDT2 MDV LHD11 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MY SBUS MH 0. 10011• 0,192178• 0,151564• 0,041643• 0005905• 0.015642• 0.015146• 0.001440• 0.002149: 0.004721: 0.000504: 0.002262 §.Q AV1fr&y,Detail Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NO CO 502 Fugitive I Exhaust P1,110 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bo-CO2 NBio-CO2 To•sICO2 CH4 N20 CO2a PM10 P1.110 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category tonelyr Mrlyr Elegncily ' ' ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 i 0.0000 ' 0.0000 e0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated •' i i i i i ' i i 00 •' ______a_______a_______a_______a_______i_______a_______a_______1__________ ___�_______ OIq ' 0.0000 O.O 0.0000 O._OO_Iq • 0.0000 000 0.0000 0.0 0. 00 0.0000 lI00 O.O Unmitigated i ' i � i ________ _ ______1 ______,______ ______;_______ ' ______ Na1112 ted O OOOD 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0 0000 ' ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 00000 0.0000 ' 0 0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0 0000 Mitigated NalualGas •• 0.000D 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 O1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 unmitigated 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugave Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 I NBio-0O2 Total 002 CH4 N20 I CO2e s Use PM10 Palo Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Tatel EUsel Land tonsyr MTlyr User Defined i 0 n 0.0000 0.0000 11 0.0000 00000 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 11 0.0000 IndusGal Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitlaated N.tu.IGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fuggise Exhaust PM10 Fugifne Exhaust PME. : 2 Total CO2 CH6 N20 CO2e s Use PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To Lane use karuNr mnayr MrNr user Dafined 0 •I 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0 0000 ; 0.0000 1 ; 0 0000 ; a 0000 ; 0.0000 a 0 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ' 0 0000 0.0000 Indusmal i I Total • 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 O.OGoo ' 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.000o 0.0000 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated qkWh/y, TotaICO2 CHd N20 CO2e Land Use MTNr User Defined 0 •I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Industnal i I T0W1 0.0000 1 0.0000 0.0o00 70000 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitlaated EledMity Total 002 CH6 N20 CO2e uae Land Uee kWMyr MTNr uaar Dei 1 0 •1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 ; 0 coo o 0.0000 Industrial l Total • 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 70000 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG I NO. I CO 502 FuOitiva Exhaust PM 10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio-0O2 TotaICO2 CM N20 002e PM10 PM10 Tolal PM25 PM2.5 TM2 Category tonsi W), Mlligatad 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0000, l 0.0000 l 0.0000 l 0.0000 l 0.0000 0.0000 • 0.0000 2.0000e- l 2.0000e- I 0.0000 0.0000 3.000Oe- •� 005 p 005 005 i 005 Un...... •• O.000O O.imo 10000e- U.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.000Oe- 2.000Oe- 0.0000 0.0000 3.000Oe- 005 005 005 005 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NO. 00 S02 Fugitive Exhaua PM- Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 BIo-COF NBia-G02 T.WICO2 GMN20 002. PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total subcategory tonw/ Mrlyr aahneamai •, O.0000 ; 00000 ' 0.0000 ' 0woo O.0000 0.0000 , 0.0000 ' 0,000 ' o0000 0.0000 0000 Coating •' ' ' ' ' ' , _ __ •' ___ _______ _______________�_______ '4_ I______________________________________ consumer o.0000 ' ' ' ' ' 0.0000 ' o.0000 ' ' o.0000 o.0000 0.0000 , 0.0000 ' o.oaoo ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 o.00go Protlucls •' I i i i i i i � ' i i i , __a .00 •' ping OoO ' O.ODDO 1 O00e-o I 0.0000 ' ' 0.0000 ' O.000O ' ' O.ODOo ; O.000O • 0.0000 12.o000e- 12.00o0e- ; O.ODOo ' 0.0000 i 3.000Oe- Lantlu I 005 I I i i 005 I 005 I , 005 I Total 0.0000 ' 0.0000 1.0000e ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 • 0.0000 ' 2.000Oa. ' 2.0000a- ' 0.0000 , 0.0000 3.000Oe- Oos nos gas o0s Mitlaated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBia-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total SubCategory Wn , MTlyr Consumer •, 0.0000 ' ' 00000 ' 00000 ' 00000 00000 00000 , 00000 ; 0aa00 ' 00000 00000 i 00000 Protlucls •� i i i i I Lantlac;p,ng 0.0000 0.0000 to000e- 0.0000 f 0.0000 0.0000 f 0.0000 0.0000 o000o 2aa0oe- zOOOOe- 0.0000 0.0000 3.000Oe- I I 005 I I I I I I ; 005 , 005 I I i 005 Nd tin rat I 1 x 0.000o o.0000 o x ' i i I 00000 o.0000 ' o.0000 o.0000 00000 oo00g 0oa0o o.0000 i .0000 Coating Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e- ' 0.0000 1 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 , 0.0000 2.aa00e- 1 Z000ge- 1 0.0000 0.0000 1 3.o000e- 005 005 005 005 7.0 Water Detail CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CM I N20 I CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated v 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 UnmiOgatetl •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Id]mgal Talel CO2 CH6 N20 CO2e dU. Land Use MT/yr User Defined 0/0 v 00000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 00000 Industrial Total 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 70000 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated IndoetlOut Ti CH6 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MTlyr User Defined 010 v 00000 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 00000 IndusVial I Total • 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year Total Cot CH4 N20 COL Ttyr -:J Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1 0.0000 Unmitigated •• 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated West. Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tans MTlyr User Defined 0 •1 00000 1 0.0000 ; 0.0000 00000 ndustrial I Total r 0.0000 0.0000 ' 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons Mi User Defined 0 •1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 Industrial I 1 I Total 0.00110 D.0000 0.0000 O.o 000 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number HourinDay, DaysNear Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 19 Date: 6/23/2015 11:45 AM 10.0 Vegetation APPENDIX C Biological Resources Letter Report HELIX EnvironmerHal Planning,Inc. HELIX 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa,CA 91942 619.462.1515%u 6 9.462.0552. Environmental Planning ..heli.pi.com September 25, 2015 LRO-02 Mr. David Watson,PE, Principal Engineer Lee&RO Inc. 1199 S. Fullerton Rd. City of Industry,CA 91748 Subject: Biological Resources Letter Report for the Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project Dear Mr. Watson: This letter presents the results of a biological resources technical study performed by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) for the proposed Newbope-Placentia(NHP)Trunk Sewer Replacement Project(Project or Project 2-72A) located within an approximately 2.5-acre footprint(Project site or site) in the cities of Fullerton and Anaheim, Orange County, California. The Orange County Sanitation District is planning to upsize the Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer in the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton. This letter report is intended to summarize the existing biological resources within the Project site,provide a focused assessment of water and wetland resources potentially subject to regulatory agency jurisdiction, and provide an analysis of the proposed impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and applicable federal, state, and local policy. INTRODUCTION Project Location The Project site or alignment is generally located north of State Route (SR) 91 (a small portion occurs south of SR 91)and west of SR 57 in northern Orange County, California(Figure 1). Specifically,the site is located along State College Boulevard and Yorba Linda Boulevard near the California State University, Fullerton(Cal State Fullerton)campus, in the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton (Figure 2). The Project alignment starts in the City of Fullerton near the Yorba Linda Pumping Station at the intersection of Yorba Linda Boulevard and North Campus Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 2 of 23 September 25, 2015 Road/Associated Road. The alignment proceeds west on Yorba Linda Boulevard until the Yorba Linda Boulevard/State College Boulevard intersection. The alignment then proceeds south along State College Boulevard, before terminating at State College Boulevard, approximately 500 feet south of SR 91 within the City of Anaheim. The site is depicted within portions of Sections 25, 26, 1,2, as well as unsectioned portions of Township 3 South,Range 10 West of the La Habra and Anaheim, California U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangles (Figure 3). The Project site does not occur in a designated open space area,according to the Orange County General Plan(County of Orange 2014). It does not occur within the Coastal Zone, according to the County's zoning map(County of Orange 2005), and it is not located within any Critical Habitat designated for federally listed species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; 2015a). The site does not occur within the boundaries of an adopted regional conservation plan. Project Description The Project proposes the upsizing of the NHP Trunk Sewer in the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton. Existing flows are currently being diverted(pumped)into the Santa Ana River(SAR) line by the Yorba Linda Pump Station instead of being routed to the NHP Trunk Sewer due to insufficient existing capacity. The Project is tiered from the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)Program Environmental Impact Report(PEIR) for the Collection System Improvement Plan(Integrated Program Management Consultants 2007). Future flows are projected from the College Town development at Cal State Fullerton, continued Anaheim Platinum Triangle land use change, future abandonment of the Yorba Linda Pump Station, and diversion of flows to incorporate flows from other OCSD trunk lines during dry weather operation. The new trunk line would be designed to accommodate 2040 peak wet weather flows. The approximate length of the Project alignment is 14,205 feet. The new pipeline would be located new the median or along the edge of Yorba Linda Boulevard and State College Boulevard(Figure 2). The existing pipeline varies from 18-inch pipe at the upstream end to 33-inch pipe at the downstream end. The new pipeline proposed for the Project would be 30 to 48 inches in diameter. Approximately 1,900 feet of 30-inch to 36-inch vitrified clay pipeline placement along the alignment is occurring as a part of an under-construction grade separation project(Project 2-65), and is not part of the proposed Project Therefore,the proposed Project would result in the replacement of approximately 12,300 feet of pipeline along the 14,205-foot alignment. The existing line would remain in place and in operation during construction. The new pipeline would be placed parallel to the existing line. The existing line would be abandoned in place following the completion of the new pipeline. At the southeast corner of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/State College Boulevard intersection,the existing pipeline leaves the roadway right-of-way and crosses the paved Cal State Fullerton parking lot. In this location,the proposed Project alignment would not follow the existing alignment,but rather it would be placed through the intersection of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/State College Boulevard, avoiding the California State Fullerton property. HELIX . o Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 3 of 23 September 25, 2015 The City of Fullerton and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) are currently constructing a vehicle undercrossing at the intersection of State College Boulevard and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway. State College Boulevard is closed between Santa Fe Avenue and Kimberly Avenue for the construction of Project 2-65. Utilities within the footprint of Project 2-65 are being replaced as part of that project. Therefore, the new pipeline for the NHP trunk sewer installed as part of the proposed Project would connect at the upstream and downstream ends of the new trunk sewer being installed as part of Project 2-65. State College Boulevard is anticipated to be closed to traffic between Fender Avenue and Kimberly Avenue from January 2015 to June 2017 for the construction of Project 2-65,with traffic detours in place to route around the Project 2-65 closure. The proposed Project also includes the abandonment or removal of approximately 10,000 linear feet of an out-of-service 10- to 12-inch Wastewater Disposal Company(W WDC) sewer pipeline. This out-of-service sewer line was originally constructed in the early 1900s by a private company and is now owned by OCSD. The proposed Project includes the removal of up to 4,500 linear feet of the W WDC in areas where the new proposed pipeline would occur in a common trench with the W WDC. The remaining portions of the W WDC (up to 5,500 feet) would be abandoned in place. The proposed Project would consist of standard open-cut trench construction methods along most of the alignment and trenchless jack-and-bore construction at two locations. For the open-cut trench construction,the trench would be 8 feet in width,consisting of a 6-foot trench and 1 foot of disturbance on each side. The depth of pipeline placement associated with the open-cut trench method is anticipated to range from approximately 10 to 15 feet. The portions of the alignment where jack-and-bore construction methods would be used include approximately 600 linear feet at the portion of the alignment that crosses SR 91 and 60 linear feet at the Orange County Flood Control Channel Crossing,with both occurring on State College Boulevard. Tunnel access pits would be constructed at each end of the two locations proposed for jack-and-bore methods. At the Orange County Flood Control Channel Crossing,the two pits would be 16 feet by 16 feet for the receiving pit at the north end and 16 feet by 24 feet for the launch pit at the south end. At the SR 91 crossing,one 10-foot-by-I5-foot receiving pit would be located north of the SR 91 westbound off-and on-ramps in the landscaped median of State College Boulevard. The launch pit would be 10 feet by 34 feet and would be located within the landscaped median of the south side of SR 91, just south of the eastbound on-and off-ramps. The depth of pipeline crossings at these two locations is anticipated to be approximately 16 to 18 feet. Project construction would require the removal and replacement of approximately 83,700 square feet of pavement. Approximately 28,000 cubic yards of soil would be removed from the Project alignment and hauled to an approved off-site disposal location. HELIX � o Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 4 of 23 September 25, 2015 METHODS Pre-Survey Investieation Prior to conducting field surveys, a thorough review of relevant maps,databases, and literature pertaining to biological resources known to occur within the Project vicinity was performed. Recent and historical aerial imagery (Google 2015),topographic maps(USGS 1964), soils maps (Natural Resource Conservation Service [MRCS] 2015a and b), and other maps of the Project site and vicinity were acquired and reviewed to obtain updated information on the natural environmental setting. In addition, a query of sensitive species databases was conducted to find out what special-status plant and animal species have been recorded within a 5-mile radius of the Project site. This included a search of the USFWS species records (USFWS 2015b), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB; CDFW 2015), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory(CNPS 2010). The USFWS' National Wetland Inventory(NWI)was also reviewed(USFWS 2015c). Recorded locations of species,wetlands,and other resources were mapped and overlaid onto aerial imagery using Geographic Information Systems(GIS). General Bioloeical Survey HELIX biologist Jason Kumow conducted a general biological survey on June 3, 2015 between 10:15 a.m. and 1:15 p.m.,which included 100 percent visual coverage of the Project site and immediate vicinity. The total area surveyed(study area) for the general biological survey was approximately 29.2 acres,which included a 50-foot-wide buffer from all Project features and the proposed alignment(Figure 4). The general biological survey included an inventory of existing conditions and focused primarily on mapping existing vegetation communities or habitat types, assessing suitability for sensitive plant and animal species, and identifying potential sensitive resources.A majority of the study area occurred in an urban environment centered on a road median. One hundred percent visual coverage was obtained within these areas by driving a vehicle the length of the proposed Project site, stopping intermittently to record data and to verify aerial imagery. Meandering pedestrian transects were performed throughout the northeastern portion of the study area where non-developed land was present. Within this area, physical parameters such as vegetation and soil conditions,presence of indicator plant and animal species, slope,aspect,and hydrology were assessed. Vegetation was mapped on 1"=200'scale aerial imagery. Representative photographs of the site were obtained(Attachment A). Plant and animal species observed or otherwise detected during biological surveys at the Project site are included in Attachments B and C,respectively. Plant identifications were made in the field. Directed inspections of habitat were performed to locate target rare plant species known to occur on the site and/or in the region.Animal species were identified by direct observation,vocalizations, or the observance of scat,tracks, or other signs. The lists of species identified are not necessarily comprehensive accounts of all species that HELIX � o Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 5 of 23 September 25, 2015 occur on the site, as species that are nocturnal, secretive, or seasonally restricted may not have been observed. The June 3, 2015 survey was performed during a drought year, which is expected to have influenced the vegetation observed during the time of the survey. Jurisdictional Delineation A formal jurisdictional delineation of the site was conducted by Mr. Kumow concurrent with the June 3, 2015 general biological survey.The focus of the delineation was to determine the presence or absence of water and wetland resources potentially subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act(CWA), Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA or State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and/or CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code(CFG Code). Potential USACE wetland boundaries or lack thereof were determined using the three criteria (vegetation, hydrology, and soils)established for wetland delineations, as described within the Wetlands Delineation Manual(Environmental Laboratory 1987), which has since been updated in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:Arid West Region(USACE 2008a). Plants were identified according to Baldwin et al. (2012), and Calflom (2014)was used to augment common names. Wetland affiliations of plant species follow the National Wetland Plant List(Lichvar et al. 2014).Vegetation was mapped using a community-based system(Holland 1986) and cross-referenced with A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Soils information was taken from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's web soil survey(MRCS 2015b). Each sampling point was inspected for primary (i.e., inundation, saturation,water marks,drift lines, sediment deposits, and drainage patterns in wetlands) and secondary(e.g.,oxidized root channels,water-stained leaves, and Facultative- [FAC-] neutral test)wetland hydrology indicators. Complete Wetland Determination Data Forms for the Arid West region are included in Attachment D. Potential USACE non-wetland boundaries were further determined using methods suggested by the USACE in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark in the Arid West Region of the Western United States(USACE 2008b).Areas were determined to be non-wetland Waters of the U.S if there was evidence of regular surface flow(e.g.,bed and bank) but the vegetation or soils criterion was not met. Jurisdictional limits for these areas were defined by the ordinary high water mark(OHWM),which is defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 329.11 as "that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear,natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of the soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter or debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas."The USACE has issued further guidance on the OHWM(Riley 2005;USACE 2008b), which also has been used for this delineation. The results presented here are also discussed in light of court decisions (i.e.,Rapanos v.United States,Carabell v. United States, and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 6 of 23 September 25, 2015 [SWANCC] v.USACE), as outlined and applied by the USACE(USACE 2007; Grumbles and Woodley 2007), USACE and Environmental Protection Agency(EPA; USACE and EPA 2007), and EPA and USACE (2007). These publications explain that the EPA and USACE will assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters(TNW) and tributaries to TNWs that are relatively permanent water bodies(RPWs), which have year-round or continuous seasonal flow. For water bodies that are not RPWs, a significant nexus evaluation must be conducted to determine whether the non-RPW is jurisdictional. An overview of USACE wetlands and jurisdictional waters of the U.S. definitions is presented in Attachment E. In light of CWA Section 401,potential State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB) or RWQCB jurisdictional boundaries were determined based on the presence or absence of potential waters of the U.S. In the context of CWA Section 401,waters of the State generally follow those identified for waters of the U.S. Isolated waters of the State subject to exclusive RWQCB jurisdiction under Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act were determined primarily based on evidence of wetland conditions and surface water area. The California Water Code Section 13050(e) defines waters of the State as"any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters,within the boundaries of the state". This definition is broadly construed to include all waters within the State's boundaries,whether private or public, including waters in both natural and artificial channels. In all applications,waters of the State include all waters of the U.S., all surface waters that are not waters of the U.S. (e.g., isolated waters and wetlands), groundwater, and territorial seas. Potential CDFW jurisdictional boundaries or lack thereof were determined based on the presence of riparian vegetation or regular surface flow. Streambeds within CDFW jurisdiction were delineated based on the definition of streambed as"a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports riparian vegetation" (Title 14, Section 1.72). Definitions of CDFW jurisdictional areas are presented in in Attachment E. In conjunction with adopting a wetlands policy on March 9, 1987, the California Fish and Game Commission assigned CDFW the task of recommending a wetlands definition. The CDFW found the USFWS wetland definition and classification system to be the most biologically valid. The CDFW uses this definition as a guide in identifying wetlands while conducting on-site inspections for the implementation of its Commission's wetlands policy. The USFWS defines wetlands as: "Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or new the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically,the land supports hydrophytes, (2)the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and(3)the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year" (Cowardin 1979). HELIX � o Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 7 of 23 September 25, 2015 RESULTS Existing Conditions General Land Use Land uses located in the northern part of the study area near Yorba Linda Boulevard include a church, single-family residences, and a commercial area. Proceeding south on State College Boulevard from the Yorba Linda Boulevard intersection, land uses include single-family residences, La Vista High School,Western State College of Law to the west, and Cal State Fullerton to the east. Proceeding farther south after the intersection of State College Boulevard and Nutwood Avenue, single-and multi-family residences and commercial areas occur within the study area down to the beginning of Project 2-65. From the end of Project 2-65 to SR 91, land uses are mostly industrial with some commercial. For the approximately 500 feet south of SR 91 that the study area continues into the City of Anaheim, a mobile home park is adjacent to the east and single-family residences are adjacent to the west. Topography and Soils Topography within the study area is a gradual north-south decline, with elevations ranging from approximately 252 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northern portion of the study area to approximately 187 feet amsl in the southern portion. Three soil mapping units are identified for the study area: Mocho loam,0 to 2 percent slopes; San Emigdio fine sandy loam,0 to 2 percent slopes;and Metz loamy,sand(Figure 5).In most areas,the native soil is no longer exposed and is covered by streets,sidewalks,and other urban features. Vegetation Communities/Habitat Types Vegetation communities or habitat types are classified in this report according to Holland(1986), with further guidance from Oberbauer et al. (2008)and A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009).Three vegetation community or land use types were mapped by HELIX within the study area(Figures 6a through e): eucalyptus woodland (i.e., eucalyptus groves), disturbed habitat(i.e.,barren/annual grassland), and urban/developed land. The existing vegetation communities are summarized below within Table 1. HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 8 of 23 September 25, 2015 Table 1 EXISTING VEGETATION COMMUNITIES VEGETATION COMMUNITY ACREAGE* HOLLAND MANUAL OF CALIFORNIA VEGETATION • Eucalyptus globulus Semi-Natural Woodland Eucalyptus Woodland Stands 0.1 (Eucalyptusgroves) • Bromus diandrus Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands Disturbed Habitat (Annual Brome Grasslands) 0.7 • Barren Urban/Developed Land Not Applicable 28.4 TOTAL 29.2 *Acreage rounded to the nearest one-tenth of an acre. Eucalyptus Woodland Eucalyptus woodland is dominated by eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.),an introduced species that has often been planted purposely for wind blocking, ornamental,and hardwood production purposes. Most groves are monotypic with the most common species being either the blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) or red gum(E. camaldulensis sap. obtusa). The understory within well-established groves is usually very sparse due to the closed canopy and allelopathic nature of the abundant leaf and bark litter. If sufficient moisture is available, this species becomes naturalized and is able to reproduce and expand its range. The sparse understory offers only limited wildlife habitat; however, as a wildlife habitat, these woodlands provide nesting sites for common raptors known to occur in the region such as red-shouldered hawk(Buteo lineatus). During winter migrations, a large variety of common warblers may be found feeding on the insects that are attracted to the eucalyptus flowers. Approximately 0.1 acre of eucalyptus woodland is located at a single location, off site and outside of the proposed alignment in the northern portion of the study area(Figure 6a). Disturbed Habitat Disturbed habitat or disturbed land includes land cleared of vegetation, land containing a preponderance of non-native plant and disturbance-tolerant species,and/or land showing signs of past or present usage that removes any capability of providing viable habitat. This classification includes rnderal(weedy) areas dominated by species typical of highly disturbed sites.This includes areas that have been physically disturbed(by previous legal human activity) and are no longer recognizable as a native or naturalized vegetation association but continue to retain a soil substrate. Typically vegetation, if present, is composed of non-native plant species such as non-native ornamentals,non-native grasses, and ruderal species that take advantage of the disturbance. HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 9 of 23 September 25, 2015 Examples of disturbed land include areas that have been graded, repeatedly cleared for fuel management purposes, and/or experienced repeated use that prevents natural revegetation. Characteristic species include invasive,non-native forb species such as thistles(Centaurea spp., Carduus spp., Cynara spp.,Sonchus spp.,Salsola tragus),horehound(Marrubium vulgare), London rocket(Sisymbrium Trio),wild radish(Raphanus spp.), ice plant(Carpobrotus edulis), garland daisy(Chrysanthemum spp.), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare).A limited number of grass species may be present(bromes [Bromus spp.]), oats(Avena spp.),Pampas grass (Cortaderia spp.), fountain grass (Pennisetum spp.)]; however, grass species typically do not dominate the vegetative cover in disturbed habitat. Disturbed habitat is located at a single location in the northern portion of the study area,totaling 0.7 acre (Figure 6a). The primary factors used in mapping this habitat type were the overall lack of vegetation and presence of bare ground. Urban/Developed Land Developed land is where permanent structures and/or pavement have been placed,which prevents the growth of vegetation, or where landscaping is clearly tended and maintained. Within the study area,urban/developed land consists of residential, industrial, and educational buildings, associated landscaping, along with paved roads and sidewalks. Urban/developed land is the predominant community within the study area, totaling 28.4 acres. General Fauna An overwhelming majority of the study area is developed, with the remainder primarily disturbed, and a fraction containing eucalyptus woodland. This does not provide extensive high quality habitat for animal species. Overall animal activity during the general survey was low. Animal species observed or otherwise detected on site included common reptile species such as western fence lizard(Sceloporus occidentalis);bird species such as house finch(Carpodacus mexicanus), lesser goldfinch(Spinus psalnia),mourning dove(Zenaida macroura), rock pigeon (Columbia livia), and house sparrow(Passer domesticus).A complete list of animal species observed or otherwise detected is included as Attachment C. Sensitive Biological Resources Sensitive Natural Communities Sensitive natural communities include land that supports unique vegetation communities or the habitats of rare or endangered species or subspecies of animals or plants as defined by Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. The study area contains eucalyptus woodland, disturbed habitat, and urban/developed land.None of these are sensitive natural communities. HELIX EnMranmenlel Plennln0 Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 10 of 23 September 25, 2015 Special-Status Plant and Animal Species Special-Status Plant Species Special-status plant species we those listed as federally threatened or endangered by the USFWS, State listed as threatened or endangered or considered sensitive by the CDFW, and/or are CNPS California Rare Plant Rank(CRPR)List IA, 1B, or 2 species, as recognized in the CNPS's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California and consistent with the CEQA Guidelines. Special-status plant species analyzed for their potential to occur in the study area are included in Attachment F.No special-status plant species were observed within the study area during the June 2015 biological survey. No special-status plants are expected to occur within the study area due to lack of suitable habitat.A majority of the study area is developed and the portion of the study area that isn't developed is primarily disturbed and does not support suitable habitat for special-status plants. Special-Status Animal Species Special-status animal species are those listed as threatened or endangered,proposed for listing, or candidates for listing by the USFWS and considered sensitive animals by the CDFW. Special-status animal species analyzed for potential to occur in the study area are included in Attachment F. No special-status animal species were observed within the survey area during the June 2015 biological survey. With exception to Cooper's hawk(Accipiter cooperii)and great blue heron(Ardea herodias),no special-status animal are expected to occur within the study area due to lack of suitable habitat, local and regional isolation,highly urbanized nature of areas surrounding and occurring within the study area, and past and ongoing disturbances, including noise, lighting, and pedestrian use. Cooper's hawk is considered a watchlist species and is not listed as endangered or threatened, or designated as a species of special concern. The great blue heron is not listed as endangered or threatened,but is considered a special animal by CDFW due to its association with habitat that is continuing to decline in California. Nesting Birds and Raptors The study area contains suitable nesting habitat for several bird species, including captors, protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA) and CFG Code. This is most applicable in the northeastern portion of the study area,which lacks development and contains trees that may be used by captors and other avian species for nesting. The likelihood of birds nesting within the remainder of the study area is low due to increased noise levels and other disturbances occurring within an urban environment. Special-status avian species are not expected to nest within urban portions of the study area. Direct impacts to nests and/or nesting birds are not anticipated because the Project would not result in the removal of trees or shrubs. HELIX HELIX o Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 11 of 23 September 25, 2015 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands In the context of this assessment,jurisdictional waters and wetlands include waters of the U.S., including wetlands,regulated by the USACE pursuant to CWA Section 404; waters of the State regulated by the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act; and/or, streambed and riparian habitat regulated by the CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of CFG Code. Wetland Sampling Points Two wetland sample points were established within the study area(Figures 7 and 8). The sample points were selected in the northeastern portion of the study area,along Fullerton Creek. A summary of the conditions found at the representative sampling points is provided below. Sample Point 1. This sample point was located in the streambed portion of Fullerton Creek (Figures 7 and 8). Surface water was present at this location,but there was no vegetation. Surface water was flowing,ranging in depth from 1 to 10 inches.The lack of vegetation appeared to be the normal circumstances for this location. Without wetland vegetation, this location does not satisfy all three parameter wetland parameters necessary to conclude that it supports wetland conditions. This location did,however,have an OHWM and is regarded as non-wetland waters of the U.S. The OHWM width here was 15 feet.Additionally, soils at this location meet the National Technical Committee on Hydric Soils definition of a wetland soil. This is due to the constant presence of water at this location resulting in anaerobic soil conditions. Sample Point 2. This sample point was located on a terrace above Fullerton Creek, near Sample Point 1 (Figures 7 and 8). Where vegetation was present, it was dominated by a variety of non-native trees,which include blue gum eucalyptus and Mexican fan palm(Washingtonia robusta); however, 3 of the6 plant species present are upland species.The remaining 3 species are either facultative or facultative wetland species. The vegetation did not meet the Dominance Test or the Prevalence Index(Prevalence Index calculation for this location was 3.3),which indicates upland vegetation at this location. There were no primary or secondary wetland hydrology indicators at this location, including an OHWM. Due to the presence of upland vegetation, lack of wetland hydrology, and lack of OHWM, it was determined that this location supports upland conditions outside of waters of the U.S. Vegetation Assessment As discussed above, 3 vegetation communities/land cover types were mapped within the survey area during the June 3, 2015 survey: eucalyptus woodland, disturbed habitat, and non-native vegetation(Table 1;Figures 6a-e).A total of 6 plant species were identified within sampling points taken during the delineation,none of which are native(Table 2). HELIX HELIX o Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 12 of 23 September 25, 2015 Table 2 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED AT SAMPLING POINTS SPECIES COMMON NAME INDICATOR STATUS Bromus diandrus* soft chess UPL Callistemon sp* bottlebrush UPL Eucalyptus lobulus* blue guru FAC Ricinus communis* castor bean UPL Schinus terebinthi olius* Brazilian ertree FAC lFashin Ionia robusta* Mexican fan palm FACW t FACW=facultative wetland species,FAC-facultative species,UPL-obligate upland species *Non-native species Soils Assessment As discussed above, 3 soil mapping units are identified for the site: Mocho loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, San Emigdio fine sandy loam,0 to 2 percent slopes,and Metz loamy sand(Figure 5). These soils me not identified as being hydric in Orange County(MRCS 2015b); however, as discussed above in Sample Point 1, hydric soils occur where there is the constant presence of surface water. Jurisdictional Discussion Based on a lack of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland conditions are not present within the portion of Fullerton Creek occurring within the study area. The NWI data indicates no wetlands within the study area(USFW S 2015c). The results of the delineation agree with the NWI data. With respect to regulatory agency jurisdiction,Fullerton Creek would qualify as non-wetland waters of the U.S. subject to jurisdiction of the USACE pursuant to CWA Section 404, non-wetland waters of the State subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the RWQCB pursuant to CWA Section 401, and streambed subject to jurisdiction of the CDFW pursuant to CFG Code Sections 1600 et seq. Wildlife Corridors and Linkages Wildlife corridors connect otherwise isolated pieces of habitat and allow movement or dispersal of plant materials and animals. Local wildlife corridors allow access to resources such as food, water,and shelter within the framework of their daily routine and life history. For example, animals can use these corridors to travel between their riparian breeding habitats and their upland burrowing habitats. Regional corridors provide these functions over a larger scale and link 2 or more large habitat areas, allowing the dispersal of organisms and the consequent mixing of genes between populations. A corridor is a specific route that is used for the movement and migration of species, and may be different from a linkage in that it represents a smaller or narrower avenue for movement.A linkage is an area of land that supports or contributes to the long-term HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 13 of 23 September 25, 2015 movement of animals and genetic exchange by providing live-in habitat that connects to other habitat areas. Many linkages occur as stepping-stone linkages that are comprised of a fragmented archipelago arrangement of habitat over a linear distance. The portion of the study area occurring within Fullerton Creek is part of a greenbelt.However, the greenbelt is not considered a wildlife corridor or linkage because it covers a relatively short distance (2.0 miles), is highly urbanized, and does not connect 2 or more blocks of open space. The remainder of the study area and immediate vicinity is characterized by highly urbanized land. It is locally and regionally isolated and separated from undeveloped land in the region by expansive development. Due to the isolated nature of the study area and the fact there are no additional undeveloped parcels or habitat fragments in the local area, locations within the study area do not function as a stepping-stone linkage and are not part of an archipelago chain of small open space patches amongst the urbanized area.Based on these findings,the study area does not support habitat that would contribute substantially to the assembly and function of any local or regional wildlife corridors or linkages. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Based on the findings of this report,activities affecting the biological resources determined to exist or have the potential to exist within the Project site could be subject to the federal, state, and local regulations discussed below. Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act All migratory bird species that are native to the United States or its territories are protected under the federal MBTA as amended under the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 (FR Doc. 05-5127). The MBTA is generally protective of migratory birds but does not actually stipulate the type of protection required. In common practice,USFWS places restrictions on disturbances allowed near active raptor nests. Clean Water Act Impacts towaters of the U.S. are regulated by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA(33 U.S. Code [USC] 401 et seq.; 33 USC 1344;USC 1413); and Department of Defense, Department of the Army,USACE(33 CFR Part 323). A federal CWA Section 404 Permit is required for impacts related to dredge, fill,or discharge in waters of the U.S. Impacts are typically permitted with a Nationwide Permit(NWP) or an Individual Permit depending on the amount of impact. A CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification administered by the RWQCB must be issued prior to any 404 Permit. All areas considered USACE jurisdictional would be covered under the 401 Certification. HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 14 of 23 September 25, 2015 State California Environmental Quality Act Primary environmental legislation in California is found in the CEQA and its implementing guidelines(State CEQA Guidelines), requiring that projects with potential adverse effects or impacts on the environment undergo environmental review. Adverse impacts to the environment are typically mitigated as a result of the environmental review process in accordance with existing laws and regulations. Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(d)provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered raze or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definition in the Endangered Species Act(ESA)and the section of the CFG Code dealing with rare or endangered plants and animals. CEQA Guideline Section 15380(d) allows a public agency to undertake a review to determine whether a significant effect would occur on species that have not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW(i.e., species of concern). Thus, if warranted under special circumstances, CEQA provides an agency with the ability to protect a species from a project's potential impacts until the respective government agencies have an opportunity to designate the species as formally protected. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any State-listed endangered or threatened species may be present in the project area and determine whether the proposed project will have a potentially significant impact on such species. California Fish and Game Code The CFG Code regulates the taking or possession of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles,as well as natural resources such as wetlands and waters of the State. Pursuant to CFG Code Section 3503, it is unlawful to take,possess,or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by the code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Raptors (birds of prey) and owls and their active nests are protected by CFG Code Section 3503.5,which states that it is unlawful to take,possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take,possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird unless authorized by the CDFW. In common practice, CDFW places timing restrictions on clearing of potential nesting habitat(e.g.,vegetation), as well as restrictions on disturbances allowed near active raptor nests. The CDFW regulates alterations or impacts to strearnbeds or lakes under CFG Code 1602. The CDFW requires notification for a Streambed Alteration Agreement(SAA) for projects that will divert or obstruct the natural flow of water; change the bed,channel, or bank of any stream; or use any material from a streambed. The SAA is a contract between the applicant and CDFW HEUX Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 15 of 23 September 25, 2015 stating what activities can occur in the riparian zone and stream course (California Association of Resource Conservation Districts 2009). SIGNIFICANCE OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION This section provides a project-level biological resources impact analysis for the proposed Project in support of environmental review. The issues addressed in this section are derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements to eliminate or reduce Project impacts to a less than significant level are also provided in this section. Issue 1: Special-Status Species Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS? Issue 1 Impact Analysis Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.As described below,the Project could result in potential significant indirect impacts to Cooper's hawk and great blue heron. Impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through the implementation of mitigation measures. No other special-status plant or annual species have the potential to occur within the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat; inappropriate soil conditions; inappropriate elevations; existing disturbances; prevalence of non-native plant species; local and regional isolation of the site; highly urbanized areas associated with much of the site,which also completely surround the site; adjacency with existing developments; and past and ongoing disturbances,including noise, lighting, and pedestrian use. Cooper's Hawk Cooper's hawk was not observed during the biological survey,but has a potential to occur within portions of the study area that are immediately adjacent to the Project site. No active or inactive nests belonging to any raptor species were observed within the study area during the June 3, 2015 survey. Cooper's hawk is not federally or state listed as endangered or threatened. It was recently demoted to a watch list species, having previously been designated a California species of special concern. The species frequents urbanized areas in the region where suitable woodland habitat occurs for nesting. Cooper's hawk has the potential to forage over the site, and could potentially nest within the eucalyptus woodland associated with Fullerton Creek. In the unlikely event that Cooper's hawk is found nesting on the site during Project construction, impacts would be considered significant. HEUX Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 16 of 23 September 25, 2015 Implementation of mitigation measure 3.3-1 below would ensure that nesting Cooper's hawks me not impacted by the Project. With the implementation of mitigation measure 3.3-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Great Blue Heron Great blue heron was not observed during the biological survey but has a potential to occur in portions of the study area that are immediately adjacent to the Project site. Great blue heron is not federally or state listed as endangered or threatened. The species frequents a variety of wetland habitats. Great blue heron has the potential to forage within Fullerton Creek. However, the portion of Fullerton Creek adjacent to the site does not contain appropriate nesting habitat for this species. In the unlikely event that great blue heron is found foraging on the site during Project construction,potential impacts would be limited to temporary displacement of non-breeding individuals and would not be considered significant. Nesting Birds Areas within and adjacent to the northeastern portion of the Project site contain trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that provide suitable nesting habitat for common birds, including raptors, protected under the MBTA and CFG Code. Construction of the proposed Project could result in noise levels exceeding a 60 decibel hourly average during the general bird nesting season (January 15 through September 15) and, therefore, could result in impacts to nesting birds in violation of the META and CFG Code. Impacts would be considered significant. Implementation of PEIR mitigation measure 3.3-1 below would reduce potentially significant impacts on nesting birds and raptors to less than significant levels. Issue 1 Mitigation Measures PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Where special-status nesting birds are identified within the Project footprint,the following avoidance,minimization, and mitigation measures will be implemented: • Project design will be evaluated to determine if a 500-foot minimum exclusionary zone can be established around active bird nests; where feasible, this will be implemented, and construction activities will be relocated or modified to avoid impact. • If nesting birds or active nest sites cannot be avoided, construction will be timed to avoid the active nesting season (February to August), and construction activities will not commence in the vicinity of nests until young have fledged. HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 17 of 23 September 25, 2015 Issue 2: Sensitive Natural Communities Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS? Issue 2 Impact Analysis No Impact. The proposed Project would impact 2.4 acres of urban/developed land and 0.3 acre of disturbed habitat. Neither community is considered sensitive, nor do these communities provide habitat for any special-status species.The Project would not impact sensitive natural communities,nor would it result in the removal of trees and shrubs. Issue 2 Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Issue 3: Wetlands Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Issue 3 Impact Analysis Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.The June 2015 jurisdictional delineation conducted in accordance with the requirements of PEIR mitigation measure 3.3-3 confuTned that no federally protected wetlands occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, no impacts to federally protected wetlands would occur. There are jurisdictional areas associated with Fullerton Creek that occur adjacent to the northern portions of the Project site,new Yorba Linda Boulevard and Almim Avenue. Resources within the Creek at this location are considered USACE-jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the U.S., RWQCB jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the State, and CDFW-jurisdictional streambed. Project construction within work areas adjacent to Fullerton Creek could potentially result in indirect impacts to jurisdictional resources if the appropriate avoidance measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) are not implemented correctly. Indirect impacts include any runoff coming from and/or through the site that contains pollutants, sediment,toxins, etc.,which then discharge into Fullerton Creek. These indirect impacts could be considered significant. PEIR mitigation measure 3.3-2 will ensure that indirect impacts are avoided by implementing measures (such as secondary containment, silt fencing, dust suppression, etc.)that will prevent discharge of sediment,pollutants, and/or toxins into Fullerton Creek. HELIX � i Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 18 of 23 September 25, 2015 Issue 3 Mitigation Measures PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: To avoid impacts to aquatic fisheries,best management practices will be implemented to avoid contaminant runoff from construction practices. This will include the following: • Equipment will not be operated in areas of ponded or flowing water. Stationary equipment such as motors,pumps, generators, and welders will be located a minimum of 200 feet outside aquatic and wetland habitats; construction staging areas, stockpiling, and equipment storage will be located a minimum of 200 feet outside aquatic and wetland habitats. • Construction vehicles and equipment will be checked periodically to ensure that proper working conditions with no potential for fugitive emissions of oil and other hazardous products exists. Refueling or lubrication of vehicles and cleaning of equipment, or other activities that involve open use of fuels,lubricants,or solvents,will occur in upland locations at least 200 feet away from aquatic or wetland habitats. • Temporary sediment-retention structures,hay bales, or silt fencing will be placed downstream of construction areas; sediment-retention devices will prevent sediment-laden water from draining off site; sediment-retention devices structures will be maintained and repaired after flood events. Issue 4: Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Issue 4Impact Analysis Less than Sienificant Impact.No wildlife corridors or linkages occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the site.The Project site does not support habitat that would contribute substantially to the assembly and function of any local or regional wildlife corridors or linkages. The Project site is primarily on urban/developed land and is surrounded on all sides by highly urbanized land. It is locally and regionally isolated and separated from undeveloped land by expansive development.The habitat that exists is relatively low in quality and is disconnected and isolated from better quality habitat in the local and regional area. Impacts to wildlife movement and nursery sites would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Issue 4 Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 19 of 23 September 25, 2015 Issue 5: Local Policies, Ordinances, and Adopted Plans Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Issue 5Impact Analysis No Impact The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The Project would not conflict with any Orange County policies or ordinances.The Project would not conflict with any City of Fullerton or City of Anaheim policies or ordinances, and no impact would occur. Issue 5 Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Issue 6: Adopted Conservation Plans Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Issue 6Impact Analysis No Impact. The Project site is not located within the boundaries, nor does it occur within a city that is a signatory of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Project would not conflict with such plans and no impact would occur. Issue 6 Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this letter report. Please do not hesitate to contact me at(619)462-1515 or Sheryl Horn(Shery1H@helixepi.com) if you have any questions or require further assistance. Sincerely, J on -mrow error Scientist HELIX � o Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 20 of 23 September 25, 2015 Enclosures: Figure 1 Regional Location Figure 2 Project Vicinity(Aerial Photograph) Figure 3 Project Vicinity (USGS Topography) Figure 4 Study Area Figure 5 Soils Figure 6a-e Vegetation/Sensitive Biological Resources/Impacts Figure 7 CDFW Jurisdictional Habitats Figure 8 Waters of the U.S. Attachment A Representative Site Photographs Attachment B Plant Species Observed Attachment C Animal Species Observed or Detected Attachment D Welland Determination Data Forms Attachment E Federal and State Jurisdictional Information Attachment F Special-Status Species with Potential to Occur HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 21 of 23 September 25, 2015 REFERENCES American Ornithologists' Union. 2011. American Ornithologist's Union Checklist of North American Birds. 7th Edition. URL: http://www.aou.org/cheeklist/north/print.php. Baldwin,B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson,T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. Calflora. 2014. http://www.calflora.org/. Berkeley, California. Accessed June 2105. California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. 2009. Guide to Watershed Project Permitting for the State of California. URL: http://www.cucd.org/permitting/ pguide.pdf. California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW)California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2015. RareFind Database Program,Version 5.1.1. Data updated June. California Native Plant Society. 2010. The Online CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. December. http://www.rueplmts.cnps.org/ Collins, Joseph T. and Travis W. Taggart. 2011. Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians,Turtles,Reptiles, and Crocodilians On line Publication of The Center for North American Herpetology. The Academic Portal to North American Herpetology, Lawrence, Kansas. www.cnah.org County of Orange. 2014. Orange County General Plan. July. 2005. Zoning Map. Cowardin, L.M.,F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, December. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp.with Appendices. Google. 2015. Google Earth. Version 7.1.5.1557. Available for download online at: http://earth.google.com/ Grumbles, B.H. and J.P. Woodley,Jr. 2007. Memorandum: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States. June 5. 12 pp. HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 22 of 23 September 25, 2015 Hickman, J.C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California.University of California Press, Berkeley, 1400 pp. Holland R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, 156 pp. Lichvar,R.,M. Butterwick,N.C. Melvin,and W.N. Kirchner. 2014. Arid West, 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List. Phytoneuron2014-41: 1-42. http://rsgisias.cuel.usace.=y.mil/nwpl_static/data/docs/lists_2014/Regions/pdf/reg_A W_2014vl.pdf Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS). 2015a.National Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. 2015b. Hydric Soils of the U.S. Internet web site. URL: http://www.mes.usda.gov/wps/portal/mcs/main/soils/use/hydric/. Oberbauer, Thomas, Meghan Kelly, and Jeremy Buegge. March 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on"Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California",Robert F. Holland,Ph.D., October 1986. Riley,D.T. 2005. Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. RGL No. 05-05. December 5. 4 pp. Sawyer,J.O.,T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evans. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. 1300 pp. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region(Version 2.0). Eds. J.S. Wakely,R.W. Lichvar, and C.V.Noble. ERDC/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg,MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. September. 2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. R.W. Lichvar and S.M. McColley. ERDC/EL TR-08-12. Hanover,NH. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. August 2007. Questions and Answers for Rapanos and Cambell Decisions. June 5. 21 pp. 1986. 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330,Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule. FR 51(219): 41217. November 13. HEUX Letter to Mr. David Watson, PE,Principal Engineer Page 23 of 23 September 25, 2015 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). 2007. Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. May 30. 60 pp. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). 1985. Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents too freshwater and marine organisms. EPA/600/4-85/013/. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth,MN,216 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007. Joint Guidance to Sustain Wetlands Protection under Supreme Court Decision. 2 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). 2015a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/crithab/ 2015b. Occurrence Information for Multiple Species within Jurisdiction of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office(CFWO). Available at: http://www.fws.gov/culsbad/gis/ cfwogis.html 2015c. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at: httn://www.fws.Eov/wetlands/ Wetlands-Data.kml 1996. Interim Survey Guidelines to Permittees for Recovery Permits under Section 10(a)(1)(A)of the Endangered Species Act for the Listed Vernal Pool Brachiopods. April 19. U.S. Geological Survey(USGS). 1964. Anaheim and La Habra, California 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic) Maps. HELIX r r' LOS ANGELES COU •Is,' �.._.- _..�.._.._ 9 1 i ORANGE COUN O♦Fgtiq ; Rgl,�,'pp�i — —• "1 Yorba FCC 000 ^ Fullerton Linda O,I;•♦p,� 3••♦ . r rr Buena �f Park Anaheim '•�S p % 1 .0 Orange \Gy� Garden Grove \ r \ Seal p ♦'•d Beach Westminster - �• Santa Tustin Ana 7q •� Fountain Huntington Valley o4 \ Beach ♦ Costa ♦ Mesa Irvine Lake l '♦.- Forest /+ \ Newport — %• ��Beach Mission Vielo / Also j Viejo Laguna / \Beach z Miguel ©'una O I P0.CfC \, D wLRIVER�SIDECOUNTY•— OC¢R>I `\ San Juan z SAN DIEGO COUNTY y Dana Capistrano 1 Point Oi :+yy. Ban _ •�... Clemente:..... l Cop Ight©2014 Esrt Regional Location NEWHOPE-PLACENTIA TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT HELIX QOmn. Figure 1 Fnvir .arbl Planning I l y �fr a eALIFORNIA STATE y FULLERTUN Q :NI n• V 1F iAa gyp, k ' CY * I I VK I c' �� � VG, '� N%YN i�f"�T� � h*1M.ts. �5 � tbx � '2♦ 4t # � %k A4 N� • �fa f� 'xh.'NF ( r V ,. .JJ�1 9 c 4 e I r•. ry �{ �kA k J_ K 9_ Project Vicinity (Aerial Photograph) NEWHOPE-PLACENTIA TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT HELIX o 000 OFe°a Figure 2 un�Yme�mlwanm� r� lAUF M LL ' 4 a�L-M� • r V v - '� er >t ,.. ..,.. . ■.1. flrvm.�SeAI Ron !„ 'avE <N' 1 / fi yi , '.PLACENTI c gL `(51 `i ® �v , ,: Ci'i140 AN 3 loll— r= Y.Y. \ iril a � _ I• oC.n4f w- 6 s t�f .61 F,nl i ir I IIII� •/ is 0, 0 � � � �, BI:L y N- Noon Jon" UP Lr: a man b • . an • �1 tl • f 40 -!• 1 M.• ,.sa �� Pt b� S ♦VE- � I _ I Io 0 '- qbOCA 40 Project Vicinity (USGS Topography) NEWHOPE-PLACENTIA TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT HELIX QOFer Figure un�m„miwamm�a -�- >'a#, 6p ♦ °. I ,.ry y�0� AIm�n. 4g. CVO ry a Maprm aaam,aJLn �L' `' 6 a � �" �A� Vortia L'intla Blvtl r# m Maunner , i1"+py' '� ' i Hala pve O y' , r°Pai{ I .lw.l7, 6aa I[•i5 aa�iFaad'�i £ •I ,/ �arne Ln : i+YM , �'�!�Muamar Drm'3d r . Oa i a! e�ai # Yrginia Rd Q p' c n- J�b' V'•-iMeI�1 L Virglnla Rtl Im GYm Br � � �,r�. 8. ! 4 'I�y.illc f1Hal`mkR qa n Melody Ln 3 r 'r ,bad s fUc V a r ♦ tcz I 1 re� F r a A �'Oa t: �O�oo Ave � oar. J `� mro '�'Y Ruby Ok 1 � a E1RulwoodrAve Nulwood ve a NulwoodoAve a �F A �HY ! `E Brookdl,s G tf w '3 L E�Chapman Ave 'i EGha manA a � y � TI a EWhitin9 Ave m Ballo Ave ice'' WCh?Prnan .mF - Er Wilshire A�e`t` � M � - Ave S a u vd SutlenelAve � � Sudene Ave = Santa Vsap"el'Ave +`. ii >' x ` y � ` EVJa` Ave a m y� m n n,Ba es bF e EWalAv nut e In � ' �5r v U Sanq Glara Ave = u e c q rSt m > Fender Ave 3 � o c E Valencia Dr o n y ^ G i a ssl y �^ Ronn Ave r E Kimberly Ave w. ' � Krmberly(Ave A y ■ r ■� ' i li �ress WaYd� . � f v \� � W^Spran9atho e FT 5 Sap�t`P q V � �� E OrangethorPe Ave y - � � +gyp+ ss Aye m `o ansa ,�4yS i Dawns WaY it eoj ParKin9�Ot w:'^ O .,Dy `ot' fIr E Benmore Ln m o x E Via BnMn '.a77.1�,C�a1 m ,o a 2� .rGati"+d A m f.kJ 5t f1 -Pia E RosewootlrAve ape /a k2 ,y�/�poy�yyp� r y ERosewootl Ave ESe Yt� a\°S° ♦r Y 'E Pinev o7j/tl Ave T ro # �k.\ra\off E�\t :1c^ nn�od�e E,Romneya Dr 0 -. E`Ro_mney`a.Dr t\ Om y 1 y `fit, •;' t Z4a r�S l; .a. a~ ���� 6m ♦ ..a Q � �. �'�Ar `G� Almr�ra A�� u�p `�`$` '�' ��JM'a atlamra Ln '-� ■ „ m +t' 'cli'J1 ;'; 1.{0'6' r .:'�� �„,.:5 � ✓ ��.. to 3 Y Maunne/PI t vP e v ■yv -e y ,"ijt- sO •To j. �g Sig - 0 Dana PI Dana PI r \ l Mr};pxlk4'\ 9 ,fw. Miramar mar r ' ■l�(/> r .h c,. t �* m rr�iraad'�!Y(�u5+7/p r Garner Ln : ; O �O J `q� � A...1, � t o' � y� n Et� C'. i � arn•, m° l?eagbD�tl 5a iwl e"�'i # Yr9inia Rd �a �t 1r-' �aeR's—l� II.l� c `n- J ,y iMelodi � y Vrr9�InralRtl. m1i Gy Or y ..� r.,r� r. o 4 CO e51 L:,.ErMelodY'L'n ' '+ f Y s� • Y Mil Y bYkRga # � Melotl}y Lna. Fu Y -t, Mly f q c 4a41 .li Iia•lyN.�Y Lb <` 'y - OI f ila u i� ■ri 1 t , 1 y., , / �r z Jr'7 .L°w away j f Ca�c L .°on Ave j a�'r3oo �`■' Ruby EHn �ii.. � KKK Nulwood Ave dr i a Nutwootl Ave `} � � yFOi a h Y � E�NulwoodrAve ■ ¢a. �,� o I'm j '.° �0�, o� � � t• o� it J P o"setAve 3 �o'Sn'f at e = A r G PI h i c.�hj, �Z a J 1 a m r Co112 i Cen[al Ave o'�4 N■ E a1V 7 q ! 4 ar EChaPman Ave v tr-' _zz_ ._ 1 a" �9 ¢ "} z y� u— r, EChaPman Ave � y Q,aK i.,�wyn' v EWhiting Ave �°1`y { A• Balfour�Ave tK' WChap���4a ELyyiiyhire A�eC O� � "" � '�jui� ?�.� f�•. v� , O r °APe, _ F RevIt 1-5 IA«■y m ? I Y a z 6 . o asj na S(g �nterst E Comm ealth Ave _ a {n m u �C SutlenelAve Bdtlene A,vwe^ � � x t m m r y � m Santa}Y�bel Ave i � O b�P N N "v yd S u � vCm o tl � '2, Santa fe qve ^ � E Wa`InubAve y EWaln fAve �,' Y i v � Santa Cl�arraAve k�. c c, c m °r St ��� IIrAR!19r,.. . > FendertAve � J �N o c` ' M t E Valencia Dr o - i p .0 si { r�, F E Kimberly Ave w. Krmberly_jAve y � �� ly� rl ° ■■ tila 0 1c,y� ` tpe pve b< y'wU ■I t 1.,. CYPress'WaY � g{m iR" li� ,. Let" p'aE �^ E OrargethorPe Ave t I I `ata.Ave $+Kansas A IL r. {Y; All g � �pY l ' ParKio9Lot Q .;my m `ot pI �.met11 � Via Burton Bt a y— .ys` aloPa Sv ei5 m 'O y �! E Benmore Ln w L EVia BnMn iWL o d �� �ny�rn i 7 m aEP E Canfield Ln F o art 1 Li ,: 2 N 4K C - EPnrKL^ t>< fz/aP�e E Ro�wootl Ave ESe t �WaV ttaA°� ` { 1 w- �' r `..e � aPaa EBdarvale Ave �_ r 2 e oaca a� E,Romneya ! A a .v or ra . .aF m ��Olba )• �..r� - .. CzmPus Dr vis Ad - 'rrI,YY (� a •D�a - • y r �- _ _ y • { in Blue Virginia II �J1 ♦ � r 1 i � o unwea n a 1 11 iE J+ 4� 7 — eemmemrwuAve 1� I EWaln antler v — I ' EOre 0 Ave 1 V vl O N ` EI z V uWe Rue A Vills . IV IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN � f'r I �Vr / k+• E �. Q w• _ 'i�t 1' S E { m I 1 1 E I _ _ 7 �• Jl_ j j _ ro��l * t ♦Y I Art Di• ' ` M1. S ep�I 1 i - ♦ y , i• I E --' Nuhvood`Ave�?JL'F�TLI � 1 I — �• p. .yam� a�� �� I;� I I ; ♦ L 1,. t '� -• 1♦ 11� 1 1 '1 : _ S.d• - I o �. '' fry"FJJJ!l1111 j�j�� 'il i s�•• k. z Y 1 ,• & I I r / � � u � � .• I 1 Ir a. ba inda Blvd \f r r S I :al �- I -\� 1 • - oe I IF. m� •, I �. tgOc N t1 otl A .� IN J• �♦ t I r ( F v __ !+I ECM1ePman Aw _ .j E Wllehln Aw 57� 1 6,1•. 4yH . —� :1 hot . 1 � E 4ommemwtllM1 Ave `Y;11 O _ 711Y�.fd.2 - ! ♦ ! EWalnNaw Fntler Ave .. AO ,• I , ! I � ♦ E Valencle Dr y EUrangMM1erye Ave '' y f E'ChaPman Aye Earo lus aw F 1 _ 1\ i ) •mow, ' 1 i 1 1 1 ♦ I 1 A r "'E - Q _ E Chapman Ave Y��� n a t.: O - I`II w Caike Ave M S ,w��� z i i I i � 74 IF � Revere Ave Alley It o� w � .. tl _ _ Epp EGommonwealth Ave �4 ,t� '� Y -1� E Commonwealth Ave _� Y ry� t �•.. f r `•� 1, , 1 9 1 ma Al 4l 1 w •! H e' Santa Vsabel Ave y - L- ' t _ E Santa Fe Ave 1 j t r• n .114 • v- EW I ut = k,j I • p - r � ' '.yam _ "' roma 1.inaa elva I s Fer = NUNroea Ave E CM1 p Aw r Y EWIM1 eFvc ` rb Eon nwnany O . , � � moE.WiI tAVe Fentlar Ave E Vabncla Or {({ 14 a s . 1 }Y� a IOmbarlY Ava � E OrangMM1nrye Ave y A a9 Kimberly Ave i I 4 I ip /. . Or >o a }= 1 • E a r—'�_-fir—r � k i �� Cypress Way• �: al 1, fI , 1 - E9rangethorpeAve, jjj i I I L b I �,i-'IV L it-�r' �L ji i L p F e I y�lan`�1'•gR.. f&�.,s I v r v,b ■ I -__ jiE�-tab of (_ `( ., lb Nut �E LM1 P A O j�f yF��r ti �EWIM1 Ave A� � .SI � YJ• n �� E10 NM1M1 A���y�pf+ :;f1 ..aJ N 1 titi�nRR> O • 2 _ 1 �� E .I_*e..� F tler Ave �� � � I Ramp � � E �IBI� � ',j � %�•yx+5�. q � i ( I � 4� � 9etbarPeA11 �y f Y 1 -• R' II � y 'iiII�JL ~' t 1 ' m �... . i C A E I . An A rl V I _ E Via Horton I Ramp' , c y::1�1�^ )) � ��\ ,i. 1. `: �v.•' �+Plif 'Tyl t r. - •`1� Leh t y = :■ S[ate Hwy 91 � -'-- �_ � _ Slate Hwy 91 :=e. P _ •. � -- --�-- � a _ _tea Y4. •� 4Y • �__ �_ State I HwY 91' .--_ 91 -. d r � Ramp ✓ - .yR^YID' a�i._ �►• �+._ 00 n '- - /E Rosewootl Ave .� I - EArbu[usave q I, •ram � V r� �` I `~ j , _ 1� �f o I�_, - � ,,+�{, , Pad... �j yr. ♦ pi + ,�, ♦ ' Q a !. �. �, • �IIL- � .il . --� Ali,` ��,� , /:; ,� � ��•. I E Romneya Dr. .rika_ ER neya Dr - ` �• I (' h �� � P rasa uem ewa J~�; � — ` � _gym �• r••-- E Balsam Ave T f 2 'I GmGr 0 x \ I 0 3 K i �0 � � •�a I z ECM1ePmenA = E Banyan Ave ' i � r - -. E WlbM1in Aw J'} ` Y ~ 1 •j =-�; EE E4am..... ltn ave EWaln a Fentlar Ave �' � _ ' . .1 t' • e IGmbeay Aw � • � � EOnn9etM1e Ave 1( C �• `+ � I Arouwa ave A r 1 4 1 r n� i Y ZOr r i 'v 1 d 3 _ 3 1 1 3 jr i O SWtly Area —•— Project Nignmant ° O Staging Area 's � ----- Sireambed 1 ti 7 - • Sample Point 1 CDFW Jurisdictional Habitats NEWHOPE-PLACENTIA TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT HELIX QOP Figure ? udmme�miw�ma� r _ 4 1 r � n Jr Y � r IS• a r OSlutly Area ' —•— Project Alignment O Staging Area s � ---- Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. Aps W Campus Dr - • Sample Point Waters of the U.S. NEWHOPE-PLACENTIA TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT HELIX QOP Figure un�mme�miwamm�a Photo 1.Looking northwest at the southern extent of the study area. Photo 2. Looking northwest along a portion of the study area adjacent to California State University, Fullerton. GFRWEGIS M-ALM0-0 IO,HLNAU A pho page Representative Site Photos NEAMPE-PL?CENTIATRUNKSEWER REPL CEMENT PROTECT HELIX Attachment A All Photo 3. Looking northeast near the northeastern extent of the study area. v Photo 4. Looking southwest near the northeastern extent of the study area. Photo 5. Looking northeast at a portion of Fullerton Creek located within the study area. GFRWEUI RO-ALM0-0 1"LNAU A pho page Representative Site Photos NE VMPE-PLACENTIATRUNK S E WER REPLACEMENT PROTECT HELIX Attachment A Attachment B PLANT SPECIES OBSERVEDt FAMILY SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME Dicots Adoxaceae Sambucus mezicana black elderberry Anacardiaceae Shinus terebinthifolius* Brazilian pepper tree Asteraceae Artemisia douglasiana mugwort Baccharis salicifolia mule fat Conyza canadensis horseweed Lactuca serriola* wild lettuce Bmssicaceae Hirschfeldia incana* perennial mustard Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium sp.* pigweed Salsola tragus* Russian thistle Euphorbiaceae Ricinus communis* castor-bean Lythraceae Lythrum hyssopifolia* grass poly Malvaceae Malvaparviilora* cheeseweed Moraceae Ficus sp.* fig Myrtaceae Callestemon sp.* bottle brush Eucalyptus globulus* blue gum Platanaceae Platanus racemosa Western sycamore Rosaceae Eriobotryajaponica* loquat Solanaceae Nicotiana glauca* tree tobacco Monocots Arecaceae Washingtonia robusta* Mexican fan palm Poaccae Brachypodium distachyon* false brome Bromus diandrus* ripgut brome Cynodon dactylon* Bermuda grass Hordium murinum* smooth barley Lamarckia aurea* goldentop tPlant species were not recorded in urban/developed areas,including landscaped areas. *Non-native species B-1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK B-2 Attachment C ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED OR DETECTED WITHIN THE BIOLOGICAL STUDY AREA SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME VERTEBRATES Reptiles Phrynosomatidae—Homed Lizards, Spiny Lizards and Sand Lizards Sceoporus occidentalis western fence lizard Birds Anatidae—Dabbling Ducks Anas platyrhynchos mallard Columbidae—Pigeons and Doves Columbia livia rock pigeon Zenaida macroura mourning dove Fringillidae—Finches Carduelis psaltria lesser goldfinch Carpodacus mexicanus house finch Parulidae—Wood Warblers Oreothlypis celata orange-crowned warbler Passeridae—Old World Sparrows Passer domesticus house sparrow Stumidae—Starlings Sturnus vulgaris European starling Trochilidae—Hummingbirds Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Selasphorus sp. selasphoms sp. Turdidae—Thrushes Sialia mexicana Western bluebird Tyrannidae—Flycatchers Sayornis nigricans black phoebe Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's kingbird C-1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C-2 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Arid West L S.� Region ` t ProjectlSite: O "Mdn �:yer:�-NCW 11Na City/County: F"`\`��^ bte., °- Sampling Date: ` 5 li Appllcadvowner: � Stale: Sampling Point: I Investigatons)'. Section,Township,Range: Sal LSi T 3 S 3 V-to l.J Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): "ca.dcJ d.>nexl Local relief(com aye,convex,none): 1, Slope(%): t-?- Subregion(LRR): C, Let: 33°.Shl lLa M Long: 1 k I" ';V 1'¢p Vx Datum: N,10 Soil Map Unit Name: Mo m Loam t o b 'L Ys�- S\o�L.S I�,e.<.+ mart.i wYftM 19 NW classification: R-.y 5IR l Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes__JZNo (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation_,Soil or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? ,vo Are'Normal Circumstances'present? Yeses, No Are Vegetation_Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? An (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations,the dialects, important features, etc. Hytlrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_ No r/ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No —�^ within a welfare? Yes_ No Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes Y No Remarks: S}ren,r.. J-w�nn.� v_n�a�z e.�or5 Nor, - uux.Uc A SUS k wvi,.7 per+ S SGx = 2:...:,... -s„aum;.\k,.a Smoke-- VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plotsize: !-'601 1 %Cover species, Status Number of Dominant Species 1. 0 That Are OBL FACW,or PAC: (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata'. (B) 4. Percent of Dominant Species =Total Cover That Are DEL,FACW,or PAC: (A/B) SaolinolShmb Stratum (Plotsize: f= .zpm 1 1. Prevalence Index worksheet: pl 2. Total%Cover of Multiply by 3, OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x 2= 5. PAC species x 3= =Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: UPL species x5= 1. Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 3 Prevalence Index =EVA= 4 HH'yyldrophylic s:Vegetation Indicator 5 y_ Dominance Test Is 50% 5 -X�,l( Prevalence Index is<3.0' L y Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) a. Problematic Hytlrophytic Vegetation(Explain) =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1 W 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2. be present,unless disturbed or problematic =Total Cover Hytlrophytic Vegetation / %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum %Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes_ No ✓ Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Add West-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Tvpe Lp Texture Remarks 'Type: C=Concentration.D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Locatlon: PL=Pare Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ distract(Ai) _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ 1 can Muck(Ag)(LRR C) _ Hlsfic Eplpedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) _ 2 cm Muck(At 0)(LRR B) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral IF) _ Reduced Vedic(F16) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2j _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) her(Explain in Remarks) _ 1 cm Muck(AS)(LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(At 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface(R) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Retloz Depressions(FBI 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral(St) _ Vernal Pools(FBI wegand hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) unless disturbed or problematle Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes t� No Remarks: r OY H'11C�- CC�yu1J /UN J/�0.\ `�-Ghn,e\ f.O�m.��— LN �y�p�v. ya��� C\Q�F n:TOn• 1� .L,\A." So i L V HYDROLOGY Watland Hydrology Indicators: Pnma/�ry Indicators(min re mum of one required check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or me reau red) �Surface Water(All _ Salt Crust(1311) _ Water Marks(Bi)(Riverine) _ High Water Table(A2) _ Biotic Crust(1312) _ Sediment Deposits(B2)(Rlverine) _ Saturation(A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Drift Deposits(133)(Rlverine) _ Water Marks(Bi)(Nonriverma) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Drainage Patterns(1310) _ Sediment Deposits(132)(Nonrlverine) _ Oxidized Rhiznspheres along Living Roots(C3) _ Dry Season Water Table(C2) _ Drift Deposits(83)(Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Crayfish Burrows(CO) _ Surface Soil Cracks(36) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils IDS) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(W) _ Thin Muck Surface(C]) Shallow Aqulfard(D3) _ Water-Stained Leaves IRS) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ FAG-Neutral Test(05) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No_ Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes_ No_ Depth(inches)'. Saturation Present? Yes_ No_ Depth(inches): Weigand Hydrology Present? Yes/ No_ includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Coms of Engineers Add West—Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Arid West Region ProiecVSite: OC $a,c"w, `D.s1'f;\} -gLte�-pfty/County: U^•ten I Sampling Date: C� 511 Appli...VOwnec O(e,roe_ to L. 5�.,.'1..a:r OI>•a.-r�� State: SamplingpglnC Y� Investigator(s): Section,Township,Range: "'Ai Lri I T 3 S 1 R-\O•J Landform(hillslope,terrace,ei St. Local relief(cnnnave,convex,none):Jr pn< Slope(%): LAD Subregion(LRR): Let: '5V S3' 25 a gd Long: 114°C}' l'3h 1J Datum: AaVO `eI Soil Map Unit Name:wm.le U-�:- o le ? F .c_nl cat�-M vnAner +ul-^-A I% NWI classification:_IZ(71 F0 Are climatic l hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation_,Soil s or Hydrology_significantly disturbed? A1° Are'Normal Circumstances'present? Yes ✓ No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_naturally problematic? A Jc (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transacts, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_ No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Welland Hydrology Present? Ves_ No U,,� within a Welland? Yes_ No. Remarks ` y ' .,,, [� IciC^VeG l . S CI .O`y+ (�1(/��JEC] �Ann2� / (n�P(J'%Im�IL`� �f 1 t w:cvn Ira'{:, VEGETATION-Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet. Tree Stratum (Plot size: C-$Gm 1 %Cover Species? Status of Dominant Species --Y-- That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: ( (A) 2. p� � •�� � J 'FI Total Number of Dominant 3 V r-1 _V Species Across All Strata: (B) IIU Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species SaolinolShrub Stratum (Plot size: f=30m J That Am OBL,FACW,or FAC: wr0 (A/B) 1. to.wx..n.% _ ''f tJ VPL Prevalence Index woroluxic 2. Total%Cover of Muhicly by 3. OBL species _ 9 x 1= 25 4. FACW species - x2= 30 FAC species no-s x3= 3a9 =Total Cover FACU species 'A x4=It Herb Stratum (PIDislze: C=< J UPL species 3Z x5= Isi0 1. Dr..ws rltw,.AfuS _3J Y JPL Column Totals ALA (A) q< (a) 2. 3. Prevalence Index =BlA= 53 4, Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. Dominance Test Is>50% fi. Prevalence lntlex is 53.0' ?. _7111f Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting S date in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 3=Total Cover Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: r= 'S.n 1 1. r 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 2. _ be present,unless disturbed or problematic. =Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum %Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes_ No Remarks: 9a-, uel�a U �— US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: -z- Profile Description: IDescribe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redo,Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moral) % Tvoel Locf Texture Remarks 'Type: C=Concentration,D=De letlon,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Linin M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic HydruMis': _ Histosol(All _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ 1 cm Muck(A9)(LRR C) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) _ 2 can Muck(A10)(LRR B) _ Black Histic(A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mlnand(Ft) _ Reduced Vedic(F18) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Red Parent Material C F2) _ Stratified Layers(A5)(LRR C) _ Depleted Matrix(F3) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ 1 cm Muck(Ag)(LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface(F6j _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(At f) _ Depleted Dark Surface(F4) _ Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _ Redox Depressions(FB) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) _ Vernal Pools(F9) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(If present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes_ No_ Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primaryd t (minimum of one reguired7 check all thatapply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) _ Surface Water(All _ Salt Crust(1311) _ Water Marks(Bt)(Riverine) _ High Water Table(A2) _ Bidge Crust(B 12) _ Sediment Deposits(B2)(Riverine) _ Saturation(Aid _ Aquatic Invertebrates(1313) _ Drift Deposits IRS)(Riverboat _ Water Marks(131)(Nonriverine) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _ Drainage Patterns(810) _ Sediment Deposits(82)(Nonriverine) _ Oxidized Rhlzospheres along Living Roots(C3J _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _ Drift Deposits(B3)(Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Crayfish Burrows(C8) _ Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils ICE) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B?) _ Thin Muck Surface(CT) _ Shallow Accident(D3) _ Water-Stained Leaves(By) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) _ FAC-Neutral Test(135) Field Observatldns: Surface Water Present? Yes_ No ✓ Depth(inches Water Table Present? Yes_ No Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes_ No_ Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes_ No_6� includes capillary hinge) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring wall,aerial photos,previous Inspections),if available: Remarks: ;n�c .�vrs obx d LPL- r.w1Y\ w; US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West-Version 2.0 Attachment E FEDERAL AND STATE JURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION Wetlands and "Waters of the U.S."Definitions The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE; Federal Register 1982) and the Environmental Protection Agency (Federal Register 1980) jointly define wetlands as "[t]hose areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The official definition of"Waters of the U.S"and their limits of jurisdiction (as they may apply) are defined by the USACE' Regulatory Program Regulations (Section 328.3, paragraphs [a] 1-3 and [e], and Section 328.4,paragraphs [c] 1 and 2)as follows: All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; all waters including interstate wetlands, all other waters such as interstate lakes, rivers, streams [including intermittent streams], mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce including any such water, which are or could be used by interstate travelers for recreation or other purposes; or from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate commerce; or which are or could be used for industries in interstate commerce; or wetlands adjacent to waters [other than waters that are themselves wetlands]. Non-tidal Waters of the U.S. The limits of jurisdiction in non-tidal waters: In the absence of adjacent wetlands, the jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water mark, or when adjacent wetlands are present,the jurisdiction extends to the limit of the adjacent wetlands. The term ordinary high water mark (OHWM) means that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear,natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation (scouring), the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. Waters of the U.S. must exhibit an OHWM or other evidence of surface flow created by hydrologic physical changes. These physical changes include (Riley 2005): E-1 • Natural line impressed on the bank • Sediment sorting • Shelving • Leaf litter disturbed or washed away • Changes in the character of soil • Scour • Destruction of terrestrial vegetation • Deposition • Presence of litter and debris • Multiple observed flow events • Wracking • Bed and banks • Vegetation matted down, bent, or absent • Water staining • Change in plant community Jurisdictional areas also must be connected to Waters of the U.S. (Guzy and Anderson 2001; U.S. Supreme Court 2001). As a consequence of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States, a memorandum was developed regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction (Grumbles and Woodley 2007). The memorandum states that the EPA and the USACE will assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters (TNW), wetlands adjacent to TNW, tributaries to TNWs that are a relatively permanent water body (RPW), and wetlands adjacent to TNW. An RPW has year round flow or continuous seasonal flow (i.e., typically for three months or longer). Jurisdiction over other waters (i.e., non TNW and RPW) will be based on a fact specific analysis to determine if they have a significant nexus to a TNW. Pursuant to the USACE Instructional Guidebook (USACE and EPA 2007), the significant nexus evaluation will cover the subject reach of the stream (upstream and downstream) as well as its adjacent wetlands (Illustrations 2 through 6, USACE and EPA 2007). The evaluation will include the flow characteristics, annual precipitation, ability to provide habitat for aquatic species, ability to retain floodwaters and filter pollutants, proximity of the subject reach to a TNW,drainage area, and the watershed. Wetland Criteria Wetland boundaries are determined using three mandatory criteria (hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soil)established for wetland delineations and described within the Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008). Following is a brief discussion of the three criteria and how they are evaluated. Vegetation "Hydrophytic vegetation is defined herein as the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present'(Environmental Laboratory 1987). The wetland indicator status (obligate upland, facultative upland, facultative, facultative wetland, obligate wetland, or no indicator status) of the dominant plant species of all vegetative layers is determined. Species considered to be hydrophytic include the classifications of facultative, E-2 facultative wetland, and obligate wetland as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1988; Table A-1). The percent of dominant wetland plant species is calculated. The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is considered to be met if it meets the "Dominance Test," "Prevalence Index,"or the vegetation has morphological adaptations for prolonged inundation. Table A-1 DEFINITIONS OF PLANT INDICATOR CATEGORIES INDICATOR ABBREVIATION PROBABILITY OF OCCURRING IN CATEGORIES WETLANDS Obligate wetland OBL Occur almost exclusively in wetlands (99 percent probability of occurring in a wetland). Usually found in wetlands (67 to 99 percent Facultative wetland FACW probability of occurring in a wetland) but occasionally in uplands. Facultative FAC Equally likely to occur in wedard (34 to 66 percentprobability) or non-wetland. Usually occur in non-wetlands but occasionally Facultative upland FACU found in wetlands (1 to 33 percent probability of occurring in a wetland). Obligate upland UPL Occur almost exclusively in non-wetlands (1 percent bability of occurring in a wetland). Hydrology "The term `wetland hydrology' encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. Areas with evident characteristics of wetland hydrology are those where the presence of water has an overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic reducing conditions,respectively" (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Hydrologic characteristics must indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least 5 percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year(approximately 18 days for most of low-lying southern California). Hydrology criteria are evaluated based on the characteristics listed below (USACE 2008). Where positive indicators of wetland hydrology are present, the limit of the OHWM (or the limit of adjacent wetlands) is noted and mapped. Evidence of wetland hydrology is met by the presence of a single primary indicator or two secondary indicators. E-3 Primary • surface water(Al) • salt crust(B11) • high water table(A2) • biotic crust(B 12) • saturation(A3) • aquatic invertebrates (B 13) • water marks (B1; non-riverine) • hydrogen sulfide odor(Cl) • sediment deposits(132;non-riverine) • oxidized rhizospberes along living roots • drift deposits(133;non-riverine (0) • surface soil cracks (B6) • presence of reduced iron(C4) • inundation visible on aerial imagery(B7) • recent iron reduction in tilled soils(C6) • water-stained leaves(B9) • thin muck surface(C7) Secondary • watermarks (Bl; riverine) • crayfish burrows (C8) • sediment deposits(132;riverine) • saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9) • drift deposits(133;riverine) • shallow aquitard(133) • drainage patterns(B 10) • FAC-neutral test(D5) • dry-season water table (C2) In the absence of all other hydrologic indicators and in the absence of significant modifications of an area's hydrologic function, positive hydric soil characteristics are assumed to indicate positive wetland hydrology. This assumption applies unless the site visit was done during the wet season of a normal or wetter-than-nonnal year. Under those circumstances, wetland hydrology would not be present. Soils "A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part" (Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS] 2004). Soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation. Soil matrix and mottle colors are identified at each sampling plot using a Mansell soil color chart (Kollmorgen 1994). Generally, an 18-inch or deeper pit is excavated with a shovel at each sampling plot unless refusal occurs above 18 inches. Soils in each area are closely examined for hydric soil indicators, including the characteristics listed below. Hydric soil indicators are presented in three groups. Indicators for"All Soils" (A) are used in any soil regardless of texture, indicators for"Sandy Soils" (S) area used in soil layers with USDA textures of loamy fine sand or coarser, and indicators for"Loamy and Clayey Soils" (F) are used with soil layers of loamy very fine sand and finer(USACE 2008). E-4 • histosols (Al) • stripped matrix(S6) • histic epipedons (A2) • loamy mucky mineral IF 1) • black histic(A3) • loamy gleyed matrix(F2) • hydrogen sulfide (A4) • depleted matrix(173) • stratified layers (A5) • redox dark surface(F6) • 1 cm muck(A9) • depleted dark surface(F7) • depleted below dark surface(Al 1) • redox depressions (F8) • thick dark surface(Al2) • veinal pools (F9) • sandy mucky mineral(S 1) • 2 cm muck(A 10) • sandy gleyed matrix (S4) • reduced vertic(F 18) • sandy redox(S5) • red parent material(TF2) Hydric soils may be assumed to be present in plant communities that have complete dominance of obligate or facultative wetland species. In some cases, there is only inundation during the growing season and determination must be made by direct observation during that season, recorded hydrologic data, testimony of reliable persons, and/or indication on aerial photographs. Non-wetland W atcrs of the U.S. The non-wetland Waters of the U.S. designation is met when an area has periodic surface flows but lacks sufficient indicators to meet the hydrophytic vegetation and/or hydric soils criteria. For purposes of delineation and jurisdictional designation, the non-wetland Waters of the U.S. boundary in non-tidal areas is the OHWM as described in the Section 404 regulations (33 CFR Part 328). USGS Mannin¢ The USGS Quad maps are one of the resources used to aid in the identification and mapping of jurisdictional areas. Their primary uses include understanding the subregional landscape position of a site,major topographical features, and a project's position in the watershed. In our experience the designation of watercourse as a blue-line stream(intermittent or perennial) on USGS maps has been unreliable and typically overstates the hydrology of most streams. This has also been the experience of others, including the late Luna Leopold. Leopold was a hydrologist with USGS from 1952 to 1972, Professor in the Department of Geology and Geophysics, and Department of Landscape Architecture,University of California,Berkeley from 1972 to 1986, and Professor Emeritus from 1987 until his death in 2006. In regard to stream mapping on USGS maps, Dr. Leopold opined that ". . . blue lines on a map are drawn by nonprofessional, low-salaried personnel. In actual fact, they are drawn to fit a rather personalized aesthetic." E-5 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Regulations The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; Department) regulates alterations or impacts to streambeds or lakes (wetlands)under Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1616 for any private, state, or local government or public utility-initiated projects. The Fish and Game Code Section 1602 requires any entity to notify the Department before beginning any activity that will do one or more of the following: (1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or (3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake. Fish and Game Code Section 1602 applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers and streams as well as lakes in the state. In order to notify the Department, a person, state, or local governmental agency or public utility must submit a complete notification package and fee to the Department regional office that serves the county where the activity will take place. A fee schedule is included in the notification package materials. Under the Permit Streamlining Act(Government Code Sections 65920 et seq.), the Department has 30 days to determine whether the package is complete. If the requestor is not notified within 30 days,the application is automatically deemed to be complete. Once the notification package is deemed to be complete, the Department will determine whether the applicant will need a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) for the activity, which will be required if the activity could substantially adversely affect an existing fish and wildlife resource. If an SAA is required, the Department will conduct an on-site inspection, if necessary, and submit a draft SAA that will include measures to protect fish and wildlife resources while conducting the project. If the applicant is applying for a regular SAA (less than five years), the Department will submit a draft SAA within 60 calendar days after notification is deemed complete. The 60-day time period does not apply to notifications for long-term SAAs (greater than 5 years). After the applicant receives the SAA, the applicant has 30 calendar days to notify the Department whether the measures in the draft SAA are acceptable. If the applicant agrees with the measures included in the draft SAA, the applicant will need to sign the SAA and submit it to the Department. If the applicant disagrees with any measures in the draft SAA, the applicant must notify the Department in writing and specify the measures that are not acceptable. Upon written request, the Department will meet with the applicant within 14 calendar days of receiving the request to resolve the disagreement. If the applicant fails to respond in writing within 90 calendar days of receiving the draft SAA, the Department may withdraw that SAA. The time periods described above may be extended at any time by mutual agreement. After the Department receives the signed draft SAA, the Department will make it final by signing the SAA; however, the Department will not sign the SAA until it both receives the notification fee and ensures that the SAA complies with the California Environmental Quality E-6 Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). After the applicant receives the final agreement, the applicant may begin the project the agreement covers, provided that the applicant has obtained any other necessary federal, state and/or local authorizations. Water Resource Control Board Regulations Section 401 Water Quality Certification Whenever a project requires a federal Clean Water Act(CWA) Section 404 permit or a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit, it must first obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) administers the 401 Certification program. Federal CWA Section 401 requires that every applicant for a Section 404 permit must request a Water Quality Certification that the proposed activity will not violate state and federal water quality standards. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and the RWQCB regulate the discharge of waste to waters of the State via the 1969 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter- Cologne) as described in the California Water Code (SWRCB 2008). The California Water Code is the State's version of the Federal CWA. Waste, according to the California Water Code, includes sewage and any and all other waste substances, liquid, solid, gaseous, or radioactive, associated with human habitation, or of human or animal origin, or from any producing, manufacturing, or processing operation, including waste placed within containers of whatever nature prior to, and for purposes of, disposal. State waters that are not federal waters may be regulated under Porter-Cologne. A Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the RWQCB for projects that result in discharge of waste into waters of the State. The RWQCB will issue Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) or a waiver. The WDRs me the Porter-Cologne version of a CWA 401 Water Quality Certification. REFERENCES California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. 2002. Guide to Watershed Project Permitting for the State of California. Available at URL: http://www.carcd.org/permitting/pguide.pdf. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1616. Date unknown. Streambed/Lake Alteration Notification Guidelines. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 100 pp. with Appendices. Grumbles, B.H. and J.P. Woodley, Jr. 2007. Memorandum: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Cambell v. United States. June 5. 12 pp. E-7 Guzy, G.S. and R.M. Anderson. 2001. Memorandum: Supreme Court Ruling Concerning CWA Jurisdiction Over Isolated Waters. U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation. 1994. Mansell Soil Color Charts, Revised edition. Baltimore, MD. Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS). 2014. Hydric Soils of the U.S. Internet web site. URL: http://www.mcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/main/soils/use/hydric/ Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California (Region 0). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report. 88 (26.10). 135 pp. Riley,D.T. 2005. Ordinary High Water Mark. RGL No. 05-05. 4pp U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. May 30. 60 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(USACE). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Eds. J.S. Wakely, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. September. U.S. Supreme Court. 2001. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,No. 99-1178 (SWANCC). January 9. E-8 Attachment F SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR' SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME STATUS' HABIT,ECOLOGY AND LIFE POTENTIAL TO OCCUR" HISTORY Plants Abronia villosa var. chaparral sand --/-- Sandy floodplains or flats in None. Suitable habitat does not aurita verbena CRPR 1B.1 generally, inland, and areas of occur within the study area. sage scrub and open chaparral. Elevation range 246-5249 ft. Flowering period Jan—Sept. Sidalcea salt spring --/-- Small herb. Occurs in alkaline or None. Suitable habitat does not neommeana checkerbloom CRPR 2B.2 mesic soil within chaparral, coastal occur within the study area. scrub, lower montane coniferous forest,Mcjavean desert scrub,and playa vegetation communities. Elevation range 45-4590 ft. Flowering period Mar—Jun. Lasthenia glabrata Coulter's goldfields --/-- Small herb. Occurs in salt marsh, None. Suitable habitat does not ssp. coulter! CRPR 1B.1 playa, and veinal pool habitats, in occur within the study area. alkaline and salty soils. Elevation range 0-3650 ft. Flowering period Feb—Jun. F-1 Attachment F(cont.) SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR' SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME STATUS' HABIT,ECOLOGY AND LIFE POTENTIAL TO OCCURS HISTORY Animals Invertebrates Euphydryas editha Quinn checkerspot FE/-- Primary larval host plants include None. Suitable habitat does not quino butterfly dwarf plantain(Plantago erecta) occur within the study area. woolly plantain(P.patagonica) and white snapdragon (Antirrhinum coulterianum). At higher elevations. Owl's clover (Castilleja a serta) is considered a secondary host plant if primary host plants have senesced. Potential habitat includes vegetation communities with areas of low-growing and sparse vegetation. These habitats include open stands of sage scrub and chaparral, adjacent open meadows, old foot trails and dirt roads. F-2 Attachment F(cont.) SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR' SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME STATUS' HABIT,ECOLOGY AND LIFE POTENTIAL TO OCCURS HISTORY Animals cunt. Fish Catostomus Santa Ana sucker FT/SSC Small fish known to occur within Not Expected.Nearest record santaanae the Los Angeles River basin, San of this species is approximately Gabriel River basin, and Santa 5 miles east of the study area, Ana River basin. Generally within the Santa Ana river. inhabits perennial streams with Based on aerial imagery it is water ranging in depth from a few unclear if and where Fullerton inches to several feet and water Creek connects to the Santa currents ranging from slight to Ana river, since approximately swift,where stream gradients are 1.5 miles downstream of the below 7'. study area the creek goes into what is suspected to be an underground culvert. The reach of Fullerton Creek that occurs adjacent to the project site does not support suitable habitat for this species. Reptiles Emys marmorata western pond turtle --/SSC Almost entirely aquatic; occurs in Not Expected. Suitable habitat freshwater marshes, creeks,ponds, does not occur within the rivers and streams,particularly survey area. Fullerton Creek where basking sites, deep water contains surface water, but retreats,and egg laying areas are overall lacks characteristic readily available. habitat qualities associated with this species. F-3 Attachment F(cont.) SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR' SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME STATUS' HABIT,ECOLOGY AND LIFE POTENTIAL TO OCCURS HISTORY Animals cunt. Reptiles cont. Phrynosoma coast homed lizard --/SSC Coastal sage scrub and open areas Not Expected. Suitable habitat blainvillii in chaparral,oak woodlands, and does not occur within the coniferous forests with sufficient survey area. Additionally, the basking sites, adequate scrub food source for this species was cover, and areas of loose soil; not observed/detected during require native ants,especially the general biological survey. harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex sp.), and are generally excluded from areas invaded by Argentine ants Line ithema humile Birds Accipiter cooperi Cooper's hawk WS/-- Roosts in oak groves,mature Low.Eucalyptus trees within riparian forest, and in tall the study area may be used for eucalyptus trees. nesting;or perching. This species is habituated to urban environments. Ardea herosias great blue heron --/-- Wetland habitats,but can be Low. Could potentially forage observed foraging away from in Fullerton creek. More water suitable habitat for this species occurs along the Santa Ana river, located approximately 5 miles east of the study area. Buteo swaimoni Swanson's hawk BCC/ST Prefers short grassland habitats Not Expected. Suitable habitat with scattered trees,which provide does not occur within the study both foraging and nesting area. opportunities. F-4 Attachment F(cont.) SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR' SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME STATUS' HABIT,ECOLOGY AND LIFE POTENTIAL TO OCCURS HISTORY Animals cunt. Birds Cont. Campylorhynchus coastal cactus wren BCC/SSC Found in coastal sage scrub Not Expected. Suitable habitat brunneicapilus vegetation communities that does not occur within the study sandiegenensis contain prickly pear and/or coastal area. cholla. yellow-breasted chat --/SSC Occurs in dense second-growth, Not Expected. Suitable Icteria virens riparian thickets,and brush. breeding habitat does not occur within the study area. coastal California FT/-- Occurs in coastal sage scrub, Not Expected. Suitable habitat Polioptila gnatcatcher typified by low, shrub and sub- does not occur within the study californica shrub species that are often area. call ornica drought deciduous. Riparia riparia bank swallow --/ST Vertical, sandy river banks or Not Expected. Suitable habitat bluffs overlooking the beach does not occur within the study men. Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo FE,BCC/SE Typically occurs in early to mid- Not Expected. Suitable successional riparian habitat, breeding habitat does not occur which has dense shrub cover within the study area. required for nest concealment as well as a structurally diverse canopy for foraging. F-5 Attachment F(cont.) SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR' SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME STATUS' HABIT,ECOLOGY AND LIFE POTENTIAL TO OCCURS HISTORY Animals cunt. Mammals Eumops perotis western mastiff bat --/-- Large bat. Roosts in coast live Not Expected. Suitable habitat californicus oaks in chaparral and rocky cliffs does not occur on the project in and regions. site. pocketed free-tailed --/SSC Mainly inhabits rugged and rocky Not Expected. Suitable habitat bat terrain,with a preference for rocky does not occur within the study Nyctinomops cliffs in weathered rock fissures area. emorosaccur and crevaces. Sensitive species reported within 5 miles of the project site. 'Listing is as follows:F=Federal;S=State of California;E=Endangered;T=Threatened;R=Raze;FP=Fully Protected;BCC=Bird of Conservation Concern;SSC=State Species of Special Concern;WS=Watchlist species. CRPR=California Rare Plant Rank: IA—presumed extinct; IB—rare,threatened,or endangered in California and elsewhere;2A—ram,threatened,or endangered in California and elsewhere;2B—rare,threatened,or endangered in California but more common elsewhere;3—more information needed;4— watch list for species of limited distribution.Extension codes: .I—seriously endangered;.2—moderately endangered;.3—not very endangered. 'Potential to Occur is assessed as follows.None: Species is either sessile(e.g.,plants)or so limited to a particular habitat that it cannot disperse on its own(e.g., fairy shrimp),and habitat suitable for its survival does not occur on the project site;Not Expected: Species moves freely and might disperse through or across the project site,but suitable habitat for residence or breeding does not occur on the project site;Low:Suitable habitat is present on the project site but is of low quality and no sign of the species was observed during surveys,however the species cannot be excluded with certainty;High: Suitable habitat occurs on the project site and the species has been recorded recently on or near the project site,but was not observed during surveys for the current project;Presumed Present:The species was observed during biological surveys for the current project and is assumed to occupy the project site.Presumed Absent:Valid protocol surveys for the species were negative and the species is assumed to not occupy the site. F-6 APPENDIX D Cultural Resources Study HELIX EnvironmerHal Planning,Inc. HELIX 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa,CA 91942 619.462.1515%u 6 9.462.0552. Environmental Planning ..heli.pi.com September 25, 2015 David Watson,PE LRO-02 Principal Engineer CM Group Manager LEE&RO, Inc. 1199 South Fullerton Road City of Industry, CA 91748 Subject: Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project— Cultural Resources Study Dear Mr. Watson: The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has developed the proposed Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project (Project) to increase the capacity of the Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer in the Cities of Fullerton and Anaheim to meet anticipated future needs. HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX) was contracted to conduct a cultural resources study in conjunction with an environmental review of the Project. This letter report details the methods and results of the cultural resources study, which included a records search, Sacred Lands File search, Native American outreach, contacting local historical societies, and a field check of the Project area for historic or cultural resources. No historic properties or significant cultural resources have been identified within the Project area. However, there is a potential for subsurface cultural resources; therefore a monitoring program is recommended, as described in this letter report. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The OCSD has developed the proposed Project to increase the capacity of the existing Newhope- Placentia Trunk Sewer in the Cities of Fullerton and Anaheim in preparation for projected increases in the College Town area of Fullerton and the Anaheim Platinum Triangle and for the future abandonment of the Yorba Linda Pump Station, through which the existing flow is diverted to the Santa Ana River line. The Project alignment is located in Township 3 South, Range 10 West, Sections 25, 26, 35, and 36, and Township 4 South, Range 10 West, Sections 1 and 2,on the U.S. Geological Survey La Habra and Anaheim 7.5' quadrangles(Figures 1 and 2). The Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project will include the replacement of 14,205 feet of existing 18- to 33-inch sewer pipes with 30- to 48-inch pipes to accommodate projected 2040 peak wet weather flows. The existing alignment stretches from the Yorba Linda Pumping Station west to the southeast comer of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/State College Letter to Mr. David Watson Page 2 of 13 September 25, 2015 Boulevard intersection, through a California State University Fullerton (CSUF) parking lot, then south through State College Boulevard. The new alignment will avoid CSUF property and be placed in the median or along the edge of Yorba Linda and State College Boulevards, parallel to the existing line. A currently-under-construction project (Project 2-65) is replacing 1,900 feet of the pipeline along State College Boulevard between Santa Fe Avenue and Kimberly Avenue and is not included in the proposed Project. Therefore,the Project will be replacing 12,300 feet of the 14,205-foot alignment(Figure 3). The Project also includes the abandonment or removal of out-of-service Wastewater Disposal Company sewer pipelines. About 4,500 linear feet of the 10,000-linear-foot long pipeline occurs in the same trench as the proposed Project alignment at a depth of five feet; this will be removed. Construction for the Project will consist primarily of trenching by a large track excavator, with jack-and-bore trenchless construction at two locations. The trenches are proposed to be 6 feet wide and 10 to 15 feet deep, with 1 foot of disturbance on each side of the trench. Jack-and-bore methods will be employed where State College Boulevard intersects State Route 91 (SR-91), where a 10-foot by 15-foot receiving pit and a 10-foot by 34-foot launch pit will be constructed, and at the Orange County Flood Control Channel intersection, where two 16-foot by 16-foot receiving pits and one 16-foot by 24-foot launch pit will be constructed. Pipeline crossings at these locations are anticipated to be 16 to 18 feet deep. Construction may occur south and north of Project 2-65 simultaneously. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Section 60.6 of 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60 presents the criteria for the evaluation of cultural resources for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as follows: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess integrity of location,design, setting,materials,workmanship, and association, and (a) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (c) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,period or method or construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history [36 CFR Part 60]. HELIX � o Letter to Mr. David Watson Page 3 of 13 September 25, 2015 Cultural resources that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are defined as "historic properties"; impacts to historic properties constitute effects under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code [PRC] §5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCRj Section 4852) including the following: A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; B. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values, or: D. Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. Cultural resources eligible for the CRHR are considered significant resources, and impacts to them are significant environmental effects under CEQA. Section 15064.5 (d) & (e) of the CEQA Guidelines contain additional provisions regarding human remains. Regarding Native American human remains,paragraph(d)provides: A. When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood, of Native American human remains within the project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as provided in Public Resources Code §5097.98. The applicant may develop an agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission. Action implementing such an agreement is exempt from: (a) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5). (b) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act. HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson Page 4 of 13 September 25, 2015 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT A review of geologic maps for the Project area shows that the area is underlain by Quaternary alluvial deposits (Rogers 1965). Fullerton Creek is located adjacent to the northernmost portion of the Project, and Carbon Creek, now channelized, crosses the southern portion of the Project (Figure 2). The Santa Ana River is located less than 2 miles southeast of the southern portion of the Project area. "Roughly once a generation, the Tongva witnessed a flood that mingled the waters of the Santa Ana with those of the San Gabriel and Los Angeles rivers and turned the coastal plain into a giant, ephemeral lake. According to an oral tradition circulated by the Luiseho people of southern Orange County, a great flood (described as a rising ocean) once covered the entire countryside,wiping out the villages on the lowlands and sparing only those camped atop the high ground of Red Hill"(Masters 2012). Over a month of heavy rains in 1862 led to flooding that left much of Orange County under several feet of water. "On March 3, 1938, following days of heavy rain, the Santa Ana River again flooded much of Orange County. An eight-foot wall of water roared out of Santa Ana Canyon and destroyed the Mexican communities of Atwood and La Jolla, killing 43. The violent river smashed through railroad bridges and carried houses off their foundations and into orange groves. Much of Anaheim lay underwater' (Masters 2012). As shown in Figure 2, these neighborhoods are located in proximity to the Project area. The Project area has been developed for decades, so native plant communities are no longer present. However, given the proximity of creeks and the Santa Ana River, vegetation communities were no doubt present during prehistoric and edmohistoric times that would have been used by the aboriginal people. CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT The Project area is within the traditional territory of the Tongva people (also known as Gabrielino or Gabrieleno, after Mission San Gabriel). The earliest evidence of Tongva occupation, derived from linguistic, archaeological, and osteological evidence, suggests the area was inhabited as early as the ninth century B.C.E. The Tongva people inhabited Los Angeles County, as well as the majority of modem day Orange County and the islands of Santa Catalina, Santa Barbara, San Nicholas, and San Clemente. At the time of Spanish explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo's entrance into Tongva territory, it is estimated that their population reached nearly 5,000 people. They were semi-nomadic and subsisted on a hunter-gatherer lifestyle in the rich landscape abundant in coastal resources, as well as acorns,pine nuts, and small game. The Tongva people created a rich material culture of varied and technical tools. They created wooden planked canoes, called d ats, which allowed them to populate and exploit the resources of the Southern Channel Islands (Welch 2006:3-4). Among these resources was steatite, a type of soapstone that was carved into vessels and ornaments and traded with neighboring tribes. The Tongva people also created rock art and ceramics. They used asphaltum, which occurs naturally in the area, both as a waterproof seal and as an adhesive to attach shell decorations to items. HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson Page 5 of 13 September 25, 2015 Other tools included portable mortars and metates, scrapers, knives, drills, paddles, wooden spoons and bowls, bone saws, needles, fishhooks, awls, slings, clubs, and baskets (Bean and Smith 1978: 538-542). Their pre-contact and contact period burial practices included cremation and flex burials (Moratto 1984: 118-130). The first Tongva contact with Europeans was slow and sporadic. Spanish explorers visited Santa Catalina Island before entering continental Tongva territory. Explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo landed on Santa Catalina Island in 1542, and his crew was attacked by Tongva warriors in a battle that ultimately lead to the captain's death (Welch 2006: 3-5). After a hiatus of 250 years, Conquistador Gaspar de Portold's expedition interacted with the Tongva on the California mainland in 1769 and met with rekindled hostility. By this time, the Tongva population was already diminished due to European diseases likely transmitted from southern tribes who had earlier Spanish contact. Nevertheless, the Spanish presence grew, and in 1771 Mission San Gabriel Arcangel was established in the modern city of San Gabriel in Los Angeles County (Bean and Smith 1978: 541). The Spanish period of California history ended in 1821 when Mexico, including Baja and Alta California, claimed independence; a short three decades later California was annexed to the United States via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, becoming the 31 st state in the Union in 1850. Mission San Gabriel Arcangel was established by Father Junipero Serra. It was originally located near Whittier Narrows, in the Los Angeles area, but was flooded in 1776 and rebuilt in San Gabriel, where it stands today. Agriculture and animal husbandry were the main pursuits of the Mission, and Tongva neophytes were forced to labor in these activities to make the Mission self- sufficient (McCawley 2006). Indian revolts were common at missions throughout the late 1770s; the most notable Tongva revolt was led by Toypurina, a chief's daughter, against Mission San Gabriel in 1785. It was unsuccessful. The mission was secularized in 1833 (Bean and Smith 1978: 540-541). The Mexican government replaced the Spanish in 1821 and began establishing land grants called ranchos. The Project area is within the former Rancho San Juan Caj6n de Santa Ana, a 35,971-acre land grant that covered the modem cities of Brea,Placentia,Fullerton, and Anaheim, with Ranchos Rincon de Is Brea and La Puente to the north, Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana to the east, Rancho Las Bolsas to the south, and Ranchos La Habra and Los Coyotes to the west (Butler 1955). This grant was given to Juan Pacifico Ontiveros, a corporal at the Mission San Gabriel Arcingel, by Spanish Governor Juan Alvarado in 1837. He and his wife, Maria Martina Osuna Ontiveros, sold 21,527 acres of the Rancho to Abel Stearns in 1853 and 1,160 acres, on which the City of Anaheim now stands, to George Hansen in 1857 (Digital Anaheim ca. 1865). Hansen surveyed and mapped out the whole Rancho two years earlier, indicating that the only building on site was the "House of D. Juan Pacifier, Ondiveras (sic)"near a sycamore tree along the eastern border of the Rancho (Hansen 1855a; see also Hansen 1855b). After California was annexed to the United States, the Public Land Commission granted the rest of the Rancho lands to Juan Pacifico's son Juan Pahicio Ontiveros (United States District Court ca. 1893). Hansen's land grant became the home of a large German immigrant population intent on agriculture and winemaking. The name of their town, Anaheim, comes from the Santa Ana River and the German word heim, meaning "home"—it was their home by the river(Gudde and Bright HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson Page 6 of 13 September 25, 2015 2004). The growing of citrus, walnuts, and grapes remained the primary feature of the landscape until 1955, when Walt Disney converted 160 acres of orange and walnut groves into Disneyland located in the south of the City (Kidney 2013). In the 1860s, Steams suffered from a terrible drought that killed off much of his cattle and was forced to sell the land that would later become Fullerton. In 1887, entrepreneurial brothers George and Edward Amerige heard that George H. Fullerton of the Pacific Land and Improvement Company was looking to buy land on behalf of the California Central Railroad. The Amerige brothers quickly purchased 430 acres of land north of Anaheim and negotiated a promised train stop at their proposed town site in exchange for right-of-way to the railroad (City of Fullerton ca. 2001). Thus, the City of Fullerton was bom. As discussed below in Record Search Results, several prominent individuals in the founding of the town site, such as Dr. George Clark and the Hetebrink family, lived near the project area. STUDY METHODS A records search was requested from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) on May 29, 2015 and received on June 22, 2015. SCCIC is the Orange County repository of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). The records search covered a %-mile radius around the Project area and included archaeological and historical resources, locations and citations for previous cultural resources studies, a review of the state Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) historic properties directory, archaeological determinations of eligibility for the NRHP and the CRHR, and historic maps. The records search summary is included as Confidential Appendix A to this letter report. HELIX contacted the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC) in May 2015 for a Sacred Lands File search and list of Native American contacts for the Project area. On June 22, 2015, the NAHC responded with a list of tribal contacts and the Sacred Lands File search results. Letters were sent on July 6, 2015 via certified mail to the contacts listed. Native American correspondence is included as Confidential Appendix B to this letter report. Local historical societies and historical record repositories were contacted. Fullerton Heritage, the Anaheim Historical Society, the Orange County Historical Society, the Anaheim Heritage Center at the MUZEO, the Anaheim City Planning Department, and the Fullerton Public Library Local History Room were telephoned or emailed on July 7, 2015. HELIX staff archaeologist Nicole Falvey conducted a review of archival records at the Fullerton Public Library Local History Room and a field check of the Project alignment on July 8,2015. RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS A total of 32 cultural resources studies have been conducted within % mile of the Project area, including seven that cover portions of the Project area itself. Four of these are reports of linear studies associated with freeways and underground utilities, and three are studies for commercial and residential development associated with CSUF. Ten cultural resources have been recorded within % mile of the project, as summarized in Table 1. All of the resources are historic structures. Two of these are adjacent to the Project alignment: P-30-157295, a historic residence HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson Page 7 of 13 September 25, 2015 from 1931, and P-30-177119, a simple brick structure dating to the 1960s.None of the resources are within the Project area and there are no Native American sites recorded within the %-mile radius records search area. Table 1 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES WITHIN ''/]MILE Resource Significant/ Number Description Recorder,Date NRHP Eligible? P-30 # 157295 Spanish Colonial Revival Woodard, 1979; Lemon Not NRHP Eligible style single-family 1983 but of local residence constructed in significance 1931 by C. F.Abort; "Mahr House" 157296 Brick Colonial Revival Lemon, 1983 Not noted style single-family residence constructed in 1886; "Henry T. Hetebrink House" 157297 Eastlake style of Moag and Woodard, Yes Victorian architecture 1976; Meighan, 1976; single-family residence Lemon, 1983 and medical office of Dr. George C. Clarke, constructed in 1895 by A.D. Porter; "Heritage House" 176574 Spanish Colonial Revival McLean, 1999 No style single-family residence built ca. 1921 176663 Atchison,Topeka and Ballester, 2002; Tang and No Santa Fe railway segment Smallwood, 2002; originally built in the McCormick,2007; 1880s Meister, 2012 176961 Ranch style multi-family Weaver, 2008 No residence with Colonial Revival characteristics built in 1967 HEUX Letter to Mr. David Watson Page 8 of 13 September 25, 2015 Table 1 (cont.) PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES WITHIN ''/3 MILE Resource Number Description Recorder,Date Significant/ P-30-# NRHP Eligible? 177117 Exaggerated Modem(or McKenna,2011 Yes Googie) style educational,commercial, and multiple unit residential property built in 1964 by Eldon Davis; "Hope International University" 177118 Simple brick commercial McKenna,2011 No structure built in 1964 177119 Simple brick commercial McKenna,2011 No structure built in 1964-1965 177446 Modernist style Apel,2012 No commercial structure with Frank Lloyd Wright influences built in 1964 by Risley, Gould, and Van Heuklyn; "The Pollack Lib Eight general areas of sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological resources have been mapped for Orange County (Integrated Program Management Consultants 2007: Figure 3-2); the Project area is outside these sensitive areas. The Project is also outside identified historic districts in the Cities of Fullerton and Anaheim. A review of records at the Fullerton Public Library Local History Room revealed that the Project area had not been considered a part of Fullerton until the early 1900s; therefore, it did not appear on many historic maps or photographs of the town. A map of voting precincts from 1918 (Renshaw 1918) shows the ownership of parcels surrounding Yorba Linda and State College Boulevards (then called East Pioneer and Cypress Avenues) at that time. Two parcels along the northern alignment belonged to members of the Hetebrink family, including the parcel on which stands the Hetebrink House (P-30-157296), and a large parcel on the western border belonged to C.C. Chapman, a wealthy rancher and the town's first mayor, whose house site is a recognized "Local Landmark" (Fullerton Plan 2013) though the structures were destroyed in a fire (Pape, personal communication 2015). The other parcels were labelled E.E. and M.E. Beasley, the Placentia Fruit Company, and a clump of small properties were collectively titled `Botford's Sub.," presumably planned as a subdivision (Renshaw 1918). Other records indicated that an application for inclusion on the NRHP was completed for the Hetebrink House in 1971 but was HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson Page 9 of 13 September 25, 2015 either denied or never submitted, as it is not listed there today. The Heritage House (P-30-157297) was originally located at the comer of Amerige Avenue and Lemon Avenue and was moved to its current location in the Fullerton Arboretum in 1972. FIELD RESULTS The Project alignment was briefly visited on July 8, 2015. One segment was inaccessible due to a road closure on State College Boulevard between East Commonwealth Avenue and East Orangethorpe Avenue. All of the buildings observed from Yorba Linda Boulevard and State College Boulevard appeared to be of modem construction. The Mahr House was slightly visible from the road, though it was obscured by a low brick wall and trees. None of the other historic buildings detailed above could be seen from the road. NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH The Sacred Lands File search conducted by the NAHC "failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within the immediate Project area." Letters were sent via certified mail on July 6, 2015 to all contacts listed by the NAHC, with the exception of John Tommy Rosas of the Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation, who was contacted via email. A response was received on July 8, 2015 from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians/Kizh(Kit'c) Nation, who stated: "Your proposed project lies within our traditional tribal territory in an area specifically once where villages adjoined and overlapped with each other. The notes of historians, ethnographers, archaeologists and anthropologists (such as John Peabody Harrington, Lowell Bean,Bernice Johnston, and William McCawley)have provided us resources referencing these village sites dating back to the late Prehistoric and Prmohistmic periods. ... Therefore, in order to protect our cultural resources, we are requesting one of our experienced & certified Native American monitors to be on site during any & all ground disturbances." Mr. Rosas of the Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation recommended cultural monitoring by the "Salas group" during work related to the Project. Native American correspondence is included as Confidential Appendix B to this letter report. SUMMARY OF EFFECTS As addressed above, no historic properties (NIZEP-eligible resources) or significant cultural resources under CEQA have been identified within the Project area. Two historic residences have been recorded adjacent to the Project area, one of which (P-30-177119) is not eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR. The other residence (P-30-157295) is not NRHP-eligible, but it is of local significance, making it eligible for the CRHR. No other cultural resources have been recorded within or adjacent to the Project area. All excavation and trenching for the Project would be within existing streets; there will be no impacts to standing structures. Based on this, the Project will have no effect on historic properties under the NHPA and no impacts to cultural resources under CEQA. HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson Page 10 of 13 September 25, 2015 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES As previously noted, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians/Kizh (Kit'c) Nation recommended that a Native American monitor be present for all ground-disturbing activity, due to the cultural importance of this area to the Gabrieleno (Gabrieleno/Gabrielino)/Tongva people. Given the alluvial setting and the history of flooding in this area, there is a potential for subsurface cultural resources. However, the Project area has been subject to a great deal of past disturbance, which lessens the potential for intact cultural resources. The Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the OCSD Collection System Improvement Plan anticipated the potential for projects to affect cultural resources. The PEIR included two general mitigation measures for cultural resources. This study fulfills the requirements of Mitigation Measurement 3.4.1, which requires a records search and literature review; a Sacred Lands File search; and determining the need for preconstruction survey or subsurface testing. The field survey was conducted in response to this mitigation measure, to determine whether cultural resources are located within the Project area. Mitigation Measure 3.4.2 of the PEIR will be implemented for this Project. Impact 3.4-2: Construction excavation could expose, encounter, or accidentally discover cultural resources, including buried human remains. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2a: Subsurface construction has the potential for exposing significant subsurface cultural resources. Due to the likelihood of encountering cultural resources, the Sanitation District will implement the following prior to commencement of construction activities: • Prior to construction, contractors, and Sanitation District staff will receive an archaeological orientation from a professional archaeologist regarding the types of resources that could be uncovered during construction activities and the identification of these resources. The orientation also will cover procedures to follow in the case of any archaeological discovery. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b: If cultural resources are encountered at any time during project excavation, construction personnel will avoid altering these materials and their context until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation. Project personnel will not collect or retain cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include, but are not limited to, chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles, dark friable soil containing shell and bone, dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails, and refuse deposits (glass, metal,wood,ceramics)often found in old wells and privies. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2c: In the event accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the county coroner will be notified immediately, and construction activities will be halted. If the remains are found to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission will be notified within 24 hours. Guidelines of the HELIX .av Letter to Mr. David Watson Page 11 of 13 September 25, 2015 Native American Heritage Commission will be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. CONCLUSION In summary, the Project is expected to have no effect on historic properties or significant cultural resources. The PEIR included two mitigation measures for cultural resources. This study fulfills the requirements for Mitigation Measure 3.4.1. Mitigation Measure 3.4.2 will be implemented at the time of construction in order to assure that potential impacts to cultural resources are less than significant. If you have any questions, please contact Mary Robbins-Wade at(619)462-1515. A Mary ains-Wade,RPA Nicole Falvey Director of Cultural Resources Staff Archaeologist Southern California Attachments: Figure 1 Regional Location Figure 2 Project Vicinity(USGS Topography) Figure 3 Project Vicinity(Aerial Photograph) Confidential Attachments: A Records Search Summaries B Native American Correspondence REFERENCES Bean, Lowell John and Charles R. Smith 1978 Gabrielino. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538-549. The Handbook of North American Indians 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution,Washington,D.C. Butler, Lowell 1955 The Old Spanish and Mexicana Ranchos of Orange County, California. Title Insurance and Trust Company,Los Angeles, California. Electronic document available at: https://www.raremal)s.com/gallery/detail/31102/The Old Spanish and Mexican Ranchos of Orange County California/Butler-Title%20Insurance%20&%20 Trusto/o20Company.liton , accessed on July 9, 2015. HELIX Letter to Mr. David Watson Page 12 of 13 September 25, 2015 City of Fullerton ca. 2001 "Oranges and Oil—A Fullerton History." City of Fullerton. Electronic document available at: htto://www.ci.fullerton.ca.us/depts/city manager/history of f illerton/default.asp, accessed on July 24,2014. Digital Anaheim ca. 1865 "Juan Pacifico Ontiveros and his wife, Maria Martina."Calisphere, University of California. Electronic document, available at htto://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/kt6vl9u2di/?layout=metadata&brand= alisl)he re, accessed on July 9, 2015. Fullerton Plan 2012"Historic Preservation Tables and Exhibits" Community Development Department, The City of Fullerton. Electronic document, available at httn://www.citvoffullerton.com/downloads large/comm dev/10_TablesandExhibi is BuiltEnv.odf, accessed on July 7, 2015. Gudde,Erwin and William Bright 2004 California Place Names. University of California Press. Found on Wikipedia. Electronic document available at: httos://m.wikii)edia.org/wiki/Anaheim, California, accessed on July 9, 2015. Hansen, George 1855a Rancho San Juan Cajon De Santa Ana, Situated in Los Angeles County Cal. Calisphere, Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley. Electronic document available at: httu://imgzoom.cdlib.ore/Fullscreen.ics?ark=ark:/13030/hb6n39p008/z 1&&brand =calisnhere, accessed on July 9, 2015. 1855b Plat of boundaries of the Rancho San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana. Huntington Digital Library. Electronic document available at: httn://hdl.hmtington.org/cdm/ref/collection/1)15150co114/id/l1309,accessed on July 9, 2015. Kidney,Kevin 2013 "Disneyland and The Anaheim Halloween Parade."Anaheim Gazette, the official Anaheim Historical Society Blog. The Anaheim Historical Society. Electronic document available at: htto://anaheim historlcalsociety.bloesoot.com/, accessed on July 9,2015. Masters,Nathan 2012 The Santa Ana River: How it Shaped Orange County. Electronic document available at: http://www.kcet.org/Wdaily/socal focus/history/la-as- subi ect/how-orange-county-tamed-the-Santa-ana-river.html, accessed on July 13,2015. HELIX EnMranmenlel PN,mInO Letter to Mr. David Watson Page 13 of 13 September 25, 2015 Renshaw,W. J. 1918 Fullerton City Voting Precincts. Map on file at the Local History Room, Fullerton Public Library. Rogers,Thomas H. 1965 Santa Ana Sheet, Geologic Map of California. California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento. United States District Court ca. 1893 Finding Aid to the Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, circa 1852-1892. Online Archive of California,Bancroft Library,UC Berkeley. Electronic document available at: http://www.oac.edlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/hb109nb422/dsc/?query=Rancho San Juan Caj%C3%B3n de Santa Ana;dsc.position=l#hitNum2, accessed on July 9, 2015. Welch, Rosanne 2006 A Brief History of the Tongva Tribe: The Native Inhabitants of the Lands of the Puente Hills Preserve. Department of History, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California. HELIX �a�, LOS ANGELES COU •�9,�, ✓/- i ORANGE COUN 0♦N, kgtic'Ppy _ —• "I Yorba FOQ 000 ^ Fullerton Linda pti•♦pH _ '•♦ r rr '_ Buena If Park Anaheim '•�i� p % t \�O Orange •\Gy� Garden Grove \ r \ Seal p ♦'•d( Beach Westminster �• v� Santa Tustin Ana 9j •� Fountain S' Huntington Valley o4 \ Beach ♦ Costa •'♦ ♦ Mesa '♦. Irvine Lake ') Forest % \ Newport — %• Beach Mission Viejo / VieoVie jo Laguna \Beach z i '\a una D Niguel ©' O P0.CfC \y D wLRIVER�SIDECOUNTY•— OC¢R7i San Juan i SAN DIEGO COUNTY _ Dana Capistrano ¢p 1 Point Oi San •�... Clemente: �l• l Cop\Nright©2014 Esn Regional Location ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT- NEW HOPE HELIX QOmne: Figure 1 Fnvir .arbl%m, . a°, 1, •:'� 1 —a . . �., E. � W n a �• }JM !AI f STAY2 CV1.1 E 4 _.1 AlIL �I.ERroy i ` v - eel i]( # I . s« e. • R.YMM :i_ Y� ,{■ . ' J ••• 26 >, ,,. I '•;,,; PLA.CENTI \ 1 ■ T'lbb � • t fa ' - I �.' I. �tlla�• o AKQEI.� -.T� t w>g��y t� j■r (� _ � � , _ •■ 1 3 Y d �..41� , I_ ��, ��o. ea 1 Project Vicinity (USGS Topography) ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT- NEW HOPE HELIX QOF. Figure un�me.mlwanm� Oef � �..a '. 57) `.. . K A.Tt�Projcct Al lgnment 8<! t Y.. YI � I w��ni1 •u e•e a "�� `. "� Project Alignment 91i -iu Ib w+ ' . , Ire "ji+' • I* r1� . e 1 e 1 1 1 I A APPENDIX E Acoustical Analysis Report HELIX Environmental Planning Orange County Sanitation District Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project 2-72A ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS REPORT July 13, 2015 Prepared for: Prepared by: Orange County Sanitation District HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 10844 Ellis Avenue 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Fountain Valley,CA 92708 La Mesa,CA 91942 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NEWHOPE-PLACENTIA TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT 2-72A ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS REPORT Prepared for: Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 Et Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 July 13,2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Location................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Description............................................................................................... 1 1.3 Program Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures.............................2 2.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................4 2.1 Noise and Sound Level Descriptors and Terminology........................................4 2.2 Noise and Vibration Sensitive Land Uses...........................................................4 2.3 Regulatory Framework........................................................................................ 5 2.3.1 City of Anaheim Municipal Code............................................................ 5 2.3.2 City of Fullerton Municipal Code............................................................ 5 2.3.3 Federally Listed Biological Species........................................................ 6 2.4 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................. 6 2.4.1 Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................... 6 2.4.2 Ambient Noise Measurements.................................................................6 3.0 Methodology and Significance Criteria.......................................................................7 3.1 Methodology and Equipment............................................................................... 7 3.2 Assumptions......................................................................................................... 8 3.2.1 Construction............................................................................................. 8 4.0 Impacts............................................................................................................................9 4.1 Issue 1: Construction Noise Levels...................................................................... 9 4.1.1 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................... 10 4.1.2 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................. 13 4.1.3 Significance After Mitigation................................................................ 13 4.2 Issue 2: Ground-Borne Vibration....................................................................... 14 4.2.1 Impact Analysis..................................................................................... 14 4.2.2 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................. 14 4.2.3 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation.............................................. 15 4.3 Issue 3: Operational Noise Levels..................................................................... 15 4.3.1 Impact Analysis..................................................................................... 15 4.3.2 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................. 15 4.3.3 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation.............................................. 15 5.0 List of Preparers..........................................................................................................16 6.0 References..................................................................................................................... 17 TABLE OF CONTENTS(cont.) APPENDICES A Noise Measurement Sheets B Construction Noise Calculations LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Follows Pase 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................2 2 Project Alignment................................................................................................................2 3 Staging, Jacking Pit, and Noise Measurement Locations....................................................2 LIST OF TABLES No. Tide Paee 2-1 Noise Measurement Results.................................................................................................8 ii GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS A-Weighted Sound Levels Decibels (referenced to 20 micro-Pascals) as measured with an A-weighting network of standard sound level meter, abbreviated dB(A) ANSI American National Standards Institute Cal State Fullerton California State University, Fullerton Caltrans California Department of Transportation CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level: A 24-hour average, where sound levels during the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. have an added 5 dB weighting, and sound levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7 a.m. have an added 10 dB weighting. dB Decibel dBA A-weighted decibels Daytime The period from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. FIR Environmental Impact Report Evening The period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Hz Hertz in/s inches per second kHz kilohertz LDN Day-Night level: A 24-hour average,where sound levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7 a.m. have an added 10 dB weighting LEQ The equivalent sound level, or the continuous sound level, that represents the same sound energy as the varying sound levels, over a specified monitoring period. mPa micro-Pascals mph miles per hour NHP Newhope-Placentia in GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS(cont.) Nighttime Periods other than daytime or evening(as defined above), including legal holidays. Noise Any audible sound that has the potential to annoy or disturb humans, or to cause an adverse psychological or physiological effect in humans. Noise Level Measurements Unless otherwise indicated, measurements that include the use of A-weighting and"slow" response of instrument that complies with at least Type 2 requirements of latest revision of American National Standard Institute (ANSI) S 1.4. Specification for Sound Level Meters. Noise-sensitive land uses(NSLU) A location where particular sensitivities to noise exist, such as residential areas, institutions, hospitals,parks, or other environmentally sensitive areas. OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority PPV peak particle velocity PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report Project Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Project RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model Sound pressure level (SPL) The observable effect of acoustic energy radiation, quantifying sound level as perceivable by the receiver. Sound power level(Swc) A specialized analytical metric that is used to fully quantify the acoustic energy emitted by a source and is complete without accompanying information on the position of measurement relative to the source. It may be used to calculate the sound pressure level at any desired distance. SR 91 State Route 91 USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service W WDC Wastewater Disposal Company iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Project proposes the upsizing of the Newhope-Placentia (NHP) Trunk Sewer in the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton. The new pipeline would be located near the median or along the edge of Yorba Linda Boulevard and State College Boulevard. The proposed Project also includes the abandonment or removal of approximately 10,000 linear feet of an out of service 10 to 12-inch Wastewater Disposal Company (W WDC) sewer pipeline. The Project analysis is tiered from the OCSD Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Collection System Improvement Plan(SCH#2006101018). Project construction would consist of standard open-cut trench construction methods along most of the alignment, trenchless jack-and-bore construction at two locations, and construction staging activities. The use of an excavator and a dump truck during open-cut trenching would generate noise levels of 78.1 A-weighted decibels (dBA) hourly average (LEQ) at 50 feet, the distance to the nearest sensitive human receptors (single- and multi-family residential and schools), and 71.2 dBA LEQ at 100 feet, the distance to sensitive habitat for migratory birds and raptors. Construction staging activities, with the use of a dump truck and crane, would generate a noise level of 80.0 dBA LEQ at 30 feet, the distance to sensitive habitat, with a 60 dBA LEQ noise contour of 300 feet. The municipal codes for the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton exempts construction noise from noise standards during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (except Sundays and holidays), respectively. The Project would only perform construction activities between the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. during weekdays (excluding holidays). Therefore, the Project would not be in violation of local ordinances, and impacts to sensitive human receptors would be less than significant. However, open-cut trenching and construction staging activities would generate noise levels in excess of the 60 dBA LEQ threshold if performed within 300 and 400 feet of sensitive habitat, respectively, during the general bird nesting season for migratory birds and raptors (January 15 through September 15); impacts are assessed as potentially significant. With implementation of PEIR mitigation measures 3.3-1 and 3.9-1, impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. Construction traffic would add a negligible amount of traffic to nearby roadways; therefore, the Project would not result in a doubling of traffic that would cause a significant 3 dBA increase in traffic noise. Transportation noise impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant. Project construction would not generate vibration levels in excess of the "severe" criterion of 0.4 peak particle velocity (PPV) inches per second (in/s) at the nearest NSLUs. Therefore, impacts related to excessive ground-borne vibration would be less than significant. Project-related noise generation would be primarily limited to short-term construction activities. Pipeline facilities, once installed, are passive and do not generate significant noise. Therefore, a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels would not be expected from the Project and no impacts would occur. HELIX Aro timlA ba mReportbatheNewhope-PlacentiaTnmkSeverReplacementProject/July2015 51 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HELIX a w Aro timlA ba mReportbrtheNewhope-PlacentiaTnmkSeverReplacementProject/July2015 52 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The Orange County Sanitation District's (OCSD) proposed Newhope-Placentia (NHP) Trunk Sewer Replacement Project (Project or Project 2-72A) is located in the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton (Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2,Project Alignment). The Project alignment starts in Fullerton near the Yorba Linda Pumping Station, located at the intersection of Yorba Linda Boulevard and North Campus Road/Associated Road. The Project alignment proceeds west on Yorba Linda Boulevard until the Yorba Linda Boulevard/State College Boulevard intersection. The Project alignment then proceeds south along State College Boulevard. The proposed Project alignment ends at State College Boulevard, approximately 500 feet south of State Route (SR) 91,within the City of Anaheim. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project proposes the upsizing of the NHP Trunk Sewer in the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton. Existing flows are currently being diverted (pumped) into the Santa Ana River line by the Yorba Linda Pump Station instead of being routed to the NH? Trunk Sewer due to insufficient existing capacity. The Project analysis is tiered from the OCSD Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Collection System Improvement Plan (SCH No. 2006101018). The volume of future flows have been projected from the College Town development at California State University, Fullerton (CSUF), planned Anaheim Platinum Triangle development, future abandonment of the Yorba Linda Pump Station, and diversion of flows to incorporate flows from other Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) trunk lines during dry weather operation. The new trunk line would be designed to accommodate 2040 peak wet weather flows. The length of the Project alignment is 14,205 feet The new pipeline would be located new the median or along the edge of Yorba Linda Boulevard and State College Boulevard. The existing pipeline varies from 18-inch pipe at the upstream end to 33-inch pipe at the downstream end. The new pipeline proposed for the Project would be 30 to 48 inches in diameter. Approximately 1,900 feet of 30-inch to 36-inch vitrified clay pipeline placement along the alignment is occurring as a part of a currently-under-construction grade separation project(Project 2-65), and is not part of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in the replacement of approximately 12,300 feet of pipeline along the 14,205-foot alignment The existing line would remain in place and in operation during construction. The new pipeline would be placed parallel to the existing line. The existing line would be abandoned in place following the completion of the new pipeline. At the southeast comer of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/State College Boulevard intersection, the existing pipeline leaves the roadway right- of-way and crosses the paved CSUF puking lot In this location, the proposed Project alignment would not follow the existing alignment, but rather would be placed through the intersection of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/State College Boulevard,avoiding the CSUF property. The City of Fullerton and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) are currently constructing a vehicle undercrossing at the intersection of State College Boulevard and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway(Project 2-65). State College Boulevard is closed between HELIX Ac tmlA ba m Reportbrthe Xmhgx-Placentia Tnmk Sever ReplacementProject/J*2015 I Santa Fe Avenue and Kimberly Avenue for the construction of Project 2-65. Utilities within the footprint of Project 2-65 are being replaced as part of that project. Therefore, the new pipeline for the NHP trunk sewer installed as part of the proposed Project would connect at the upstream and downstream ends of the new trunk sewer currently being installed as part of Project 2-65. State College Boulevard is anticipated to be closed to traffic between Fender Avenue and Kimberly Avenue from January 2015 to July 2017 for the construction of Project 2-65, with traffic detours in place to route around the Project 2-65 closure. The proposed Project also includes the abandonment or removal of approximately 10,000 linear feet of an out of service 10- to 12-inch Wastewater Disposal Company(WWDC) sewer pipeline. This out-of-service sewer line was originally constructed in the early 1900s by a private company and is now owned by OCSD. The proposed Project includes the removal of up to 4,500 linear feet of the WWDC in areas where the new proposed pipeline would occur in a common trench with the WWDC. The remaining portions of the WWDC (up to 5,500 feet) would be abandoned in place. The proposed Project would consist of standard open-cut trench construction methods along most of the alignment and trenchless jack-and-bore construction at two locations. For the open- cut trench construction, the trench would be 8 feet in width, consisting of a 6-foot trench and one foot of disturbance on each side. The depth of pipeline placement associated with the open-cut trench method is anticipated to range from approximately 10 to 15 feet. The portions of the alignment where jack-and-bore construction methods would be used include approximately 600 linear feet at the SR-91 crossing at the portion of the alignment that crosses SR-91 and 60 linear feet at the Orange County Flood Control Channel Crossing, with both occurring on State College Boulevard. Tunnel access pits would be constructed at each end of the two locations proposed for jack-and-bore methods. At the Orange County Flood Control Channel Crossing, the two pits would be 16 feet by 16 feet for the receiving pit at the north end and 16 feet by 24 feet for the launch pit at the south end. At the SR-91 crossing, one I0-foot by 15-foot receiving pit would be located north of the SR-91 westbound off- and on-ramps in the landscaped median of State College Boulevard. The launch pit would be 10 feet by 34 feet and would be located within the landscaped median of the south side of SR-91,just south of the east bound on- and off- ramps. The depth of pipeline crossings at these two locations is anticipated to be approximately 16 to 18 feet. Project construction would require the removal and replacement of approximately 81,000 square feet of pavement. Approximately 29,000 cubic yards of soil would be removed from the Project alignment and hauled to an approved offsite disposal location. Construction activities would require the closure of two lanes of traffic along State College Boulevard, and three lanes on the west half of Yorba Linda Boulevard. Each of the lanes is 15-feet wide and would be closed for the construction activities. 1.3 PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures were identified in the PEIR to reduce construction-related noise impacts: HELIX Aco tmlA ba m Reportbr the Newhgx-Placentia Tnmk Sever ReplacementProject/July 2015 2 r LOS ANGELES COU 11Y9,� �.._.._. _.._. _.._.._.._. B I ORANGE COUNT `\Fq •.t Yorba FC��CO Fullerton Linda L,yryaL,l, --j r. ,f Buena .P4 j Park op Anaheim !. 0 `O it Zo Orange \Ly Gartlen '•!L Grove t �\ Seal p a' d Beach Westminster Santa Tustin �q 1 Ana 9 'a Fountain i Huntington Valley o4 \ Beach Costa a �1 Mesa tea. Irvine Lake .p -•� Forest 1 - \ Newport % Beach Mission Viejo /• Aliso j \ Viejo ' Laguna / `BeachLura z - •\\ Niguel O 1 = Pacific �. - w RIVERSIDE COIINTV._ Ocean San Juan i SAN DIEGO COUNTY Dana Capistrano ¢ I \Point 00 San Clemente; s I \ Gop\yright @ 2014 Esri Regional Location NEWHOPE-PLACENTIA TRUNK SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT HELIX OMaee Figure 1 fml.. owmuam, c - Larkl Ellen Ur hoshonlAw e ' u ,� Rolling Nllls D Me w n` 5 a Bestarchury RE le Ur m _ 1.: `d@�� f y e . 4 Muamar DF' m � m Topail� d/sb r a a � V w • ��glM1�' � p o a .Alta Vista t a Project Alignment E Wilshire A$'ve ° � � � ey Balfour Ave j"',") 4 �'�� fl9 r4 yp 1 W i �'� Stanford Dr - Q E--ommonwealth-A've N ¢ P {� ww P�entler Ave + . � a• 3 ECrowther Ave E Valencia Dr i dp{�yp�� ' E Elm Ave � i�r�4 ° Ii���WI-I orPa,Pva N > � Kimberly�Ave N�a Arw yIN1E pra�atl 1 a ra'• ilk. E E OrangethorP.Ave E6a AXINy y N _� Profeet Alignment ���, a �a` `1 ' EVia B@urton EH,M � `�� i a ° m c�atW^ Epor°°ad e y E u E Rom ey Gr m .tl s em E m i E La Palma Ava m g�§� i m y ry � N m 2 SOY A •. . y'or 3. EeSY°am°ra Sl > ,x m N• R w ie p o E�;coln.4ve S A ' yc T' -►"' � �.c� eai P �R� 'o � �_w e\m ��.�` P yu" �v"�.p Mllton-Ave {• i �' "� L R 40 i .."d, •€' 1�. $+ e2, F Z� .fie7 ,_ � � i �� •. s��✓ ti A ;�s.l'� @ 7 ,a p a{, y@•,. � y Y �+,�, i4 W +-- ca^ �Iy�H�4. /�'{ 'i t C k �L�i'n"tla B�tl � /( An�t�aPh `4'+{ ti* y T 61 Ov ja a AMaurl PI as 9 > v W Cam Pus Dr +r o Diu -aG�a eIL p n .aft � D aP� es AyL Mirarma?r Dr ieab a° fi3O , �1' s^x. 9di Fr. l e i l y ms r e ; S a G m Dry g i \6 T1F Y Meotl Ln rgnRtl X° Y �e �wi� 0 RAY d4� rl ii�K k l I�U�Y WQ ,16WF Harmto ;Irl "("� Nor tl111. ✓•i r Ruby Dr "y p. laEr���'a ➢ , ! b°�: ri�A�� r 91571PG 't}t•��� e`°�� .0 � W. Y. Arts.Dr . ' ""� "Rub yy- Tll e- N t ootlA cN % j f .2T i�NutW o c r Prf m � t �� M'o%FAyp�yr ,a �n PfiPP idt'fixR x \ t College PI In rc 1 E �r a t't��:ir r� t s E Whig gAve' `&viah - »e B yY� r _ wy'AC el � E`Commonw`ealth Ave s Prolec[Allgnmenty eie q F 'n,� eH`- �� a .' Suden'�Ave N �4 - i,Gana lfs�abel{Ave O•. E Walnut Ave ry °" °'` � �.s a1 7Ti17! - Fende -Ave 3' u" al E6Valew'nciar0r _ a„- - q " yA' via! im a im ve Y a 1 1 yy��. s,scct1] CYPress WaYpi. { fN� W Drangath . r FFF x Prolect en^Alignm �a , A � y �y E Benmore - E Via Burton -� W C '�q ' F In, S N 0 z pve, [ ,play r ood.A,re EBrlary le ve " � QW ="E Romneya Dr _ S _ A Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Evaluation of impacts to special-status plants, birds, mammals, and amphibians and reptiles will occur at the Project level. Specifically, all areas of natural habitat within the footprint of proposed construction activities with potential to support special-status biological resources will be surveyed according to standard protocol. Where special-status biological resources are identified within the Project footprint, appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures will be implemented. Depending on the special-status biological resources present,measures could include the following: Where special-status nesting birds are identified within the Project footprint, the following avoidance,minimization,and mitigation measures will be implemented: • Project design will be evaluated to determine if a 500-foot minimum exclusionary zone can be established around active bird nests; where feasible, this will be implemented, and construction activities will be relocated or modified to avoid impact. • If nesting birds or active nest sites cannot be avoided, construction will be timed to avoid the active nesting season (February to August), and construction activities will not commence in the vicinity of nests until young have fledged. Mitigation Measure 3.9-1: To minimize noise disruption during construction, construction activities will generally be scheduled to occur during times allowed by applicable codes, noise ordinances, or permits. Additionally, the following mitigations could be implemented as required: • Noise reduction measures such as sound blankets or temporary sound walls could be used to reduce noise generation from stationary noise generating equipment during construction. • Stationary noise generating equipment such as generators could be placed within the jacking pits where possible to reduce noise during construction. • Pile driving activities or other particularly disruptive construction could be limited to specific times agreed to with agencies ofjurisdiction or adjacent property owners prior to construction. • Where appropriate, noise monitoring at the closest sensitive receptors could be conducted and reports submitted to the city ofjurisdiction. Mitigation Measure 3.9-2: Project level review will be completed and will identify specific areas susceptible to groundbome vibration. For such identified areas, construction notification would occur and construction activities would be limited to times allowed by applicable codes, noise ordinances or permits. HELIX a a Ac tmlA ba m Reportbr the Newhgx-Placentia Tnmk Sever ReplacementProject/July 2015 3 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 NOISE AND SOUND LEVEL DESCRIPTORS AND TERMINOLOGY All noise level or sound level values presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels (dB), with A-weighting (dBA) to approximate the bearing sensitivity of humans. Time-averaged noise levels are expressed by the symbol LEQ, with a specified duration. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average, where noise levels during the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. have an added 5 dB weighting, and sound levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. have an added 10 dB weighting. This is similar to the Day-Night sound level (LDN), which is a 24-hour average with an added 10 dB weighting on the same nighttime hours but no added weighting on the evening hours. Sound levels expressed in CNEL are always based on dBA. These metrics we used to express noise levels for both measurement and municipal regulations, as well as for land use guidelines and enforcement of noise ordinances. Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a liquid or gaseous medium (e.g., air) to a hearing organ, such as a human ear. Noise is defined as loud,unexpected, or annoying sound. In the science of acoustics, the fundamental model consists of a sound (or noise) source, a receiver, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source and obstructions or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path to the receiver determine the sound level and characteristics of the noise perceived by the receiver. The field of acoustics deals primarily with the propagation and control of sound. Continuous sound can be described by frequency (pitch) and amplitude (loudness). A low-frequency sound is perceived as low in pitch. Frequency is expressed in terms of cycles per second, or Hertz(Hz) (e.g., a frequency of 250 cycles per second is referred to as 250 Hz). High frequencies are sometimes more conveniently expressed in kilohertz (kHz), or thousands of Hertz. The audible frequency range for humans is generally between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. The amplitude of pressure waves generated by a sound source determines the loudness of that source. A logarithmic scale is used to describe sound pressure level (SPL) in terms of decibels (dB). The threshold of hearing for the human ear is about 0 dB, which corresponds to 20 micro-Pascals(mPa). Because decibels are logarithmic units, SPL cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3-dB increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dB higher than one source under the same conditions. 2.2 NOISE AND VIBRATION SENSITIVE LAND USES Noise-sensitive land uses (NSLUs) are land uses that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise, such as residential dwellings, transient lodging, hospitals, educational HELIX Ac tmlA ba m Reportbr the Newhope-Placentia Tnmk Sever ReplacementPmiect/July 2015 4 facilities, libraries, and sensitive habitat. Industrial and commercial land uses are generally not considered sensitive to noise. NSLUs in the Project area include single- and multi-family residences, mobile homes, schools, churches, and sensitive habitat. The Project Biological Resources Letter Report concluded that the eucalyptus woodland at the north end of the Project alignment is sensitive habitat, as the vegetation could potentially be used for migratory birds and raptor nesting(HELIX 2015). Land uses in which ground-bome vibration could potentially interfere with operations or equipment we considered "vibration-sensitive," such as research, manufacturing, hospitals, and university research operations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2006). The degree of sensitivity depends on the specific equipment that would be affected by the ground-borne vibration. In addition, excessive levels of ground-bome vibration of either a regular or an intermittent nature can result in annoyance to residential uses. Vibration-sensitive land uses in the Project area include the single- and multi-family residences and mobile home parks discussed above. Research laboratories at CSUF are set back at least 900 feet within the campus from Project activities. 2.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK When a local agency is directly and immediately engaged in"the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water or wastewater," the agency has an absolute exemption from complying with local building ordinances for the location or construction of facilities [Government Code, § 53091, subds. (d), (e)]. Local zoning ordinances do not apply to the location or construction of facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water. The Project involves facilities directly and immediately engaged in the production, generation, treatment, and transmission of water. Therefore, the Project is exempt from the noise limits in the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton. Nonetheless, the Project would be consistent with the standards in the City of Anaheim and City of Fullerton's Municipal Codes (described below)with the incorporation of mitigation measures, as discussed in Section 4.0. 2.3.1 City of Anaheim Municipal Code 2.3.1.1 Chapter 6.70,Sound Pressure Levels Section 6.70.010 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code states that no person shall generate a noise level in excess of 60 dBA "at any point on the property line." However, the code exempts sound created by construction or building repair of any premises from the application of Chapter 6.70 during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Additional work hours may be permitted if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works or Building Official. 2.3.2 Citv of Fullerton Municipal Code 2.3.2.1 Chapter 15.90,Noise Standards and Regulation The City of Fullerton Municipal Code states that the exterior noise standards for a residence, school, hospital, residential care facility for the elderly, or religious institution to be 55 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 45 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The code states that it shall be unlawful for noise to be generated that exceeds: HELIX AcowtmlA ba m Reportbr the Mmhope-Placentia71wk Sever ReplacementProject/July 2015 S 1. The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour. 2. The noise standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes but less than 30 minutes in any hour. 3. The noise standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes but less than 15 minutes in any hour. 4. The noise standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than one minute but less than five minutes in any hour. 5. The noise standard plus 20 dBA for a cumulative period of less than one minute in an hour. However, the code exempts noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property from these noise level standards between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday or a City of Fullerton-recognized holiday. 2.3.3 Federally Listed Biological Species Some studies, such as that completed by the Bioacoustics Research Team (1997), have concluded that 60 dBA is a single, simple criterion to use as a starting point for passerine impacts until more specific research is done. Associated guidelines produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) require that project noise be limited to a level not to exceed 60 dBA LeQ or, if the existing ambient noise level is above 60 dBA, increase the ambient noise level by 3 dBA at the edge of occupied habitat during the avian species breeding season. 2.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4.1 Surrounding Land Uses Land uses located in the northern part of the Project near Yorba Linda Boulevard include single- family residences, a church, a commercial area, and sensitive biological habitat. Proceeding south on State College Boulevard from the Yorba Linda Boulevard intersection, land uses adjacent to the Project alignment include single-family residences, La Vista High School, Western State College of Law to the west, and CSUF to the east. Proceeding further south after the intersection of State College Boulevard and Nutwood Avenue, single- and multi-family residences and commercial areas line both the western and eastern sides of the Project alignment down to the beginning of Project 2-65. From the end of Project 2-65 to SR 91, land uses adjacent to the Project alignment are mostly industrial with some commercial. For the approximately 500 feet south of SR 91 that the Project alignment continues into the City of Anaheim, a mobile home park is adjacent to the east and single-family residences are adjacent to the west. 2.4.2 Ambient Noise Measurements Four 10-minute noise measurements were conducted during a site visit on June 3, 2015. The measurement time was sufficiently long for the noise level (LEQ) to stabilize. These sites were chosen as they represent where construction would occur within the vicinity of NSLUs HELIX Ac tmlA ba m Reportbr the XMW-PlacentiaThmk SemrReplacementPmiect/July 2015 6 (residences, schools, sensitive habitat and churches). The measured noise levels and related weather conditions are shown in Table 2-1, Noise Measurement Results. Locations of the measurements can be seen in Figure 3, Staging, Jacking Pit, and Noise Measurement Locations. Refer to Appendix A for the site visit field sheets documenting the noise measurements. Table 2-1 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS Measurement Location Nearest Conditions Time LEA NSLU Notes Near 1240 61°F,3-5 miles South State per hour(mph) 10:07- Helicopter fly Nil SouthResidential wind,66 percent 10:17 a.m. 71.7 over;bird Boulevard humidity vocalizations Excavator Near 2491 64°F,0-2 mph working within 30 Santa 10:49- foot of M2 Ysabel Residential wind,66 percent 10:59 a.m. 68.g measurement; car Avenue humidity traffic reduced due to construction Neu Visual 66°F,0-2 mph _ Group of students M3 Arts Center School wind,65 percent 11.24 70.3 walked by meter; at Cal State humidity 11:34 a.m. plane flyover Fullerton Church, 740E 1-3 mph M4a Neu Dong Residential, wind,56 percent 11:57 a.m.- 62.5 Plane flyover Shin Church Sensitive humidity 12:07 p.m. Habitat 74°F, 1-3 mph 12:10- 2""recording of M4b Same as 4a Same as 4a wind,56 percent 6 L7 humidity12:20 p.m. same area 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 3.1 METHODOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT The following equipment was used to measure existing noise levels at the Project site: • Larson Davis System LxT Integrating Sound Level Meter • Larson Davis Model CA250 Calibrator • Windscreen and tripod for the sound level meter • Digital camera The sound level meter was field-calibrated immediately prior to the noise measurements to ensure accuracy. All measurements were made with a meter that conforms to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for sound level meters (ANSI SIA-1983 HELIX Acoustical Nobl s Reportbathe Newhgx-Placentia Tnmk Sever Replacement Project/July 2015 7 R2001). All instruments were maintained with National Bureau of Standards traceable calibration per the manufacturers' standards. Project construction noise was modeled using the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM; U.S. Department of Transportation 2008),which utilizes estimates of sound levels from standard construction equipment. 3.2 ASSUMPTIONS 3.2.1 Construction 3.2.1.1 Construction Equipment Construction activities for the proposed Project may occur on two portions simultaneously on both north and south portions of the alignment (which is divided by the Project 2-65 grade separation). Given the distances between these alignments, the noise analysis analyzed each construction activity individually. Construction equipment for the Project would include: • Large track excavator(1) • Pipe delivery trucks/flatbed • Dump trucks(5) • Crew pickup trucks(6) • Shoring and trench shields • Traffic control trucks • Flashers/messenger boards(2) • Water truck for dust control • Horizontal auger for tunnel boring at jack-and-bore construction area 3.2.1.2 Construction Staging Construction staging for the Project would occur in four locations along the Project alignment. Two of these locations would be for general construction activities along the entire alignment, while the remaining two staging areas would be directly associated with jack-and-bore activities at the Orange County Flood Control Channel Crossing and SR 91 crossings. The two locations for general construction activities include the northwest comer of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/Almira Avenue intersection(hereafter referred to as the northern staging area) and the southwest corner of the South State College Boulevard/East Kimberly Avenue intersection (hereafter referred to as the southern staging area). The northern staging area is located approximately 700 feet west of the beginning of the Project alignment in a dirt lot used for Cal State Fullerton puking. The southern staging area is located just north of the roadway closure associated with Project 2-65. Staging locations can be seen in Figure 3. For jack-and-bore activities, these would be a 38-foot by 115-foot construction staging area within the closed travel lanes of State College Boulevard. The launch and receiving pits would be contained within the construction staging area footprint. For the SR-91 crossing, a 20 by 60-foot construction staging area would be located north of SR-91, and a 40- by 75-foot construction staging area would be located south of SR-91. Both staging areas would be located HELIX Aro tmlA ba m Reportbr the Nmhgx-Placentia71mk Sever ReplacementProject/July 2015 8 within the landscaped median of State College Boulevard, and would include the launch and receiving pits for the jack-and-bore activities. The staging locations within the jack-and-bore construction areas are not analyzed further, as the other construction activities in those areas, analyzed in Section 4.1.1.2, would dominate noise generation. 3.2.1.3 Construction Schedule Construction of the Project is projected to begin in July 2016 and be completed within 18 months subsequent to initiation. The average pipeline construction rate would be approximately 60 feet of pipe per day for the portion along Yorba Linda Boulevard, and approximately 100 feet per day for the portion along State College Boulevard. Incorporated into Project design per PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.9-1, construction activities and associated equipment maintenance would be limited to weekdays (excluding holidays)from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 3.2.1.4 Vibration Construction vibration for the Project may be caused by excavators working on open-cut trenching or jack-and-bore pits, and the use of a horizontal auger for tunnel boring. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provides a vibration level of 0.089 peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/s) for a large dozer or caisson drill (Caltrans 2013). It is assumed that an excavator or a horizontal auger would produce a lower PPV than a large dozer or caisson drill. Therefore, as a conservative measure, dozer and caisson drill vibration levels are used as a proxy for excavator and horizontal auger levels. 4.0 IMPACTS 4.1 ISSUE 1: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Construction of the proposed Project would consist of standard open-cut trench construction methods and, at two locations, jack-and-bore pit (trenchless) construction. Each method would use different construction equipment. Staging locations for construction would also generate noise. Noise levels generated to nearby NSLUs from each method and the staging locations are described below. The PEIR that the Project analysis is tiered from states that "providing construction and any subsequent maintenance activities occur during time limits allowed by the Anaheim and Fullerton Municipal Codes, the Project would be in compliance with the local noise standards." Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, construction activities would be considered significant if activities do not comply with the local noise standards of the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton. The City of Anaheim Municipal Code restricts construction noise levels to 60 dBA unless construction is being performed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The City of Fullerton Municipal Code prohibits construction equipment from being operated on Sundays, major holidays, or between the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday. Construction activities would also be considered significant if noise levels exceeded 60 dBA LEQ or, if the existing ambient noise level is above 60 dBA, increase the ambient noise level by 3 dBA at the edge of occupied habitat during the general avian species breeding season HELIX Aco tmlA ba m Reportbr the Newhgx-Placentia Tnmk Sever ReplacementProject/July 2015 9 (January 15 to September 15). Impacts to biological resources are further discussed in the Project Biological Resources Letter Report(HELIX 2015). 4.1.1 Impact Analysis 4.1.1.1 Open-cut Trench Construction Open-cut trenching would be performed along most of the Project alignment, except for the two tunneling sections (described below under Section 4.1.1.2). NSLUs would be located along much of the trenching, including: • Residences (including single- and multi-family residential and mobile homes), with the closest residence approximately 50 feet from trenching; • Schools (a high school, law school, and Cal State Fullerton), with the closest school approximately 50 feet from trenching; • Churches, with the closest church approximately 275 feet from trenching; and • Sensitive habitat for nesting raptors (eucalyptus woodland), located approximately 100 feet from trenching. The loudest noise from trenching would be generated from an excavator digging the trench and a dump truck loading and hauling the excavated material. As a reasonable worst-case scenario, the two pieces of equipment were assumed to be operating simultaneously for 40 percent of an 8-hour construction day. At a distance of 50 feet, the excavator and dump truck were modeled to generate a noise level of 78.1 dBA LEQ with a 75 dBA LEQ noise contour of 75 feet. At a distance of 100 feet, these pieces of equipment were modeled to generate a noise level of 72.1 dBA LEQ with a 60 dBA LEQ noise contour of 400 feet. At 275 feet, these pieces of equipment were modeled to generate a noise level of 63.3 dBA LEQ. Please see Appendix B, Construction Noise Calculations,for more details. Construction noise within the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton is exempt from noise standards if conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (except Sundays and holidays), respectively. As the proposed Project would only perform construction between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during non-holiday weekdays (incorporated into Project design per PEIR mitigation measure 3.9-1), the noise levels generated from open-cut trenching would not exceed standards established in the local noise ordinances. However, open-cut trenching activities would generate noise levels in excess of the 60 dBA LEQ threshold if performed within 400 feet of sensitive habitat during the general bird nesting season for migratory birds and raptors (January 15 through September 15). As construction would take place within 100 feet of eucalyptus woodland, determined to be sensitive habitat by the Project Biological Resources Letter Report (HELIX 2015), impacts are assessed as potentially significant. With implementation of PEIR mitigation measure 3.3-1, impacts would be less than significant. HELIX Aco tmlA ba mReportbrtheNewhgx-PlacentiaTnmkSeverReplacementProject/July2015 10 Mitigation PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Evaluation of impacts to special-status plants, birds, mammals, and amphibians and reptiles will occur at the Project level. Specifically, all areas of natural habitat within the footprint of proposed construction activities with potential to support special-status biological resources will be surveyed according to standard protocol. Where special-status biological resources are identified within the Project footprint, appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures will be implemented. Depending on the special-status biological resources present, measures could include the following: Where special-status nesting birds are identified within the Project footprint,the following avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures will be implemented: • Project design will be evaluated to determine if a 500-foot minimum exclusionary zone can be established around active bird nests; where feasible, this will be implemented, and construction activities will be relocated or modified to avoid impact. • If nesting birds or active nest sites cannot be avoided, construction will be timed to avoid the active nesting season (February to August), and construction activities will not commence in the vicinity of nests until young have fledged. 4.1.1.2 Jack-and-Bore Pit Construcdon There would be two jacking pits: one located just south of SR-91 within the median (southern jacking pit) and one located at the Orange County Flood Control Channel Crossing (northern jacking pit). The NSLUs nearest to the southern jacking pit would be mobile homes to the east and single-family residences to the west,both located approximately 50 feet from the pit. As the northern jacking pit would be located in the middle of the industrial and commercial area on State College Boulevard, the nearest NSLUs would be single-family residences located approximately 1,700 feet to the southwest. Jack-and-bore pit construction would not be conducted near sensitive habitat. Prior to work within the pit, an excavator with a drill attached would install soldier pilings to reinforce the pit. The jacking pits would then be dug with an excavator and a dump truck. As a reasonable worst-case scenario, the two pieces of equipment were assumed to operate simultaneously and to be operating for 40 percent of an 8-hour construction day. At a distance of 50 feet, these pieces of equipment were modeled to generate a noise level of 78.1 dBA Lao with a 75 dBA LEo noise contour of 75 feet. At 1,700 feet, the excavator and dump truck were modeled to generate a noise level of 47.5 dBA LEo. Tunnel boring would occur in the same location as the jacking pits. The horizontal auger would be run with either a diesel-powered motor or an electric-powered motor. The diesel-powered motor would be operated fully within the jacking pit; therefore, it would not generate significant noise outside of the pit. The electric-powered motor would require a generator outside of the pit that would generate noise. As a reasonable worst-case scenario, the generator was assumed to operate for 50 percent of an 8-hour construction day. At a distance of 50 feet, the generator was modeled to generate a noise HELIX AcouatmlA ba m Reportbr the Newhgx-Placentia hwkSemrReplacementProject/July 2015 II level of 69.8 dBA LEQ with a 75 dBA LEQ noise contour of 28 feet. At 1,700 feet, the generator was modeled to generate a noise level of 39.2 dBA LEQ. Construction noise within the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton is exempt from noise standards if conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (except Sundays and holidays), respectively. As the proposed Project would only perform construction between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during non-holiday weekdays (incorporated into Project design per PEIR mitigation measure 3.9-1), the noise levels generated from jack-and- bore construction would not exceed standards established in the local noise ordinances. PEIR Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 states that to "minimize noise disruption during construction. Stationary noise generating equipment such as generators could be placed within the jacking pits where possible to reduce noise during construction." As generator noise would not violate local standards, use of a generator within the jacking pit would not be required (although it may still be implemented). Therefore, impacts from jack-and-bore construction would be less than significant. 4.1.1.3 Staging Storage piles would potentially be located at the northern and southern staging locations and would be used as temporary placement for soil and other material. A single-family residence, a church, and sensitive habitat would be located approximately 125, 150, and 30 feet north of the northern staging location. Single-family residences would be located approximately 1,700 feet southeast of the southern staging location. The loudest noise from storage pile-related construction activities would be a dump truck and a crane to unload and load materials. The dump trucks were assumed to be operating for 40 percent of an 8-hour construction day, while the cranes were assumed to be operating for 16 percent of an 8-hour construction day. These pieces of equipment would generate a noise level of 80.0 dBA LEQ at 30 feet, 67.6 dBA LEQ at 125 feet, 66.0 dBA LEQ at 150 feet, and 44.9 dBA LEQ at 1,700 feet. The 60 dBA LEQ noise contour would be 300 feet. Construction noise within the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton is exempt from noise standards if conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (except Sundays and holidays), respectively. As the proposed Project would only perform construction between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during non-holiday weekdays (incorporated into Project design per PEIR mitigation measure 3.9-1), the noise levels generated from construction staging would not exceed standards established in the local noise ordinances. However, construction staging activities would generate noise levels in excess of the 60 dBA LEQ threshold if performed within 300 feet of sensitive habitat during the general bird nesting season (January 15 through September 15). As northern construction staging activities would take place within 100 feet of eucalyptus woodland, determined to be sensitive habitat by the Project Biological Resources Letter Report (HELIX 2015), impacts are assessed as potentially significant. With implementation of PEIR mitigation measure 3.9-1, impacts would be less than significant. HELIX Ac tmlA ba m Reportbr the Newhope-Placentia Tnmk Sever ReplacementProject/July 2015 12 Mitigation Mitigation Measure 3.9-1: To minimize noise disruption during construction, construction activities will generally be scheduled to occur during times allowed by applicable codes, noise ordinances, or permits. Additionally, the following mitigations could be implemented as required: • Noise reduction measures such as sound blankets or temporary sound walls could be used to reduce noise generation from stationary noise generating equipment during construction. • Stationary noise generating equipment such as generators could be placed within the jacking pits where possible to reduce noise during construction. • Pile driving activities or other particularly disruptive construction could be limited to specific times agreed to with agencies of jurisdiction or adjacent property owners prior to construction. • Where appropriate, noise monitoring at the closest sensitive receptors could be conducted and reports submitted to the city of jurisdiction. 4.1.1.4 Construction Traffic Project construction traffic would mostly consist of workers arriving to and leaving from the Project areas. These workers would likely use various roadways in the surrounding area. The City of Fullerton's General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR; City of Fullerton 2012) describes overall traffic numbers for the "Education: Focus Area," which encompasses the Cal State Fullerton campus area and surrounding roadways. The General Plan traffic number for the focus area is 29,754 average daily trips(ADT). A general rule of thumb is that a doubling of ADT would cause a doubling in noise (a 3 dBA increase), which would be considered a significant increase. As the Project would have six crew pickup trucks at the site, the Project would generate an estimated 12 ADT, which would increase area traffic by less than one percent Therefore, the increase in traffic from the Project would have a negligible impact on noise and impacts from construction traffic would be less than significant. 4.1.2 Mitigation Measures The restrictions on open-cut trenching and construction staging activities described in PEIR mitigation measures 3.3-1 and 3.9-1 would reduce noise levels to below applicable standards. 4.1.3 Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. HELIX a a Ac tmlA ba m Reportbr the Newhgx-Placentia Tnmk Sever ReplacementProject/July 2015 13 4.2 ISSUE 2: GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION The cities of Fullerton and Anaheim do not provide quantitative thresholds for ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. Construction vibration significance is typically determined by comparing vibration levels to criterion established by Caltrans (2013). Therefore, the Project would result in a significant impact if it would expose persons to construction vibration exceeding the Caltrans-specified"severe" criterion of 0.4 in/s PPV for NSLUs. 4.2.1 Impact Analysis 4.2.1.1 Construction Vibration Per PEIR mitigation measure 3.9-2, Project-level review is to include an analysis of areas susceptible to ground-bome vibration, and if areas are identified construction notification would occur and construction activities would be limited to tunes allowed by applicable codes, noise ordinances or permits. Open-cut Trench Construction An excavator would be expected to create the highest vibration levels during open-cut trench construction. Per Caltrans guidance provided in Section 3.2.1.4, an excavator is expected to generate vibration levels of 0.089 PPV in/s at 25 feet. The closest vibration-sensitive land use from trenching would be schools (CSUF, La Vista High School, and Western State College of Law) and multi- and single-family residential, located at a distance of approximately 50 feet. Therefore, as the excavator's vibration would be below the criterion of 0.4 PPV in/s at 25 feet, no areas susceptible to ground-borne vibration would have significant impacts at 50 feet. Jack-and-Bore Construction An excavator would be expected to create the highest vibration levels during jack-and-bore construction. Per Caltrans guidance provided in Section 3.2.1.4, an excavator is expected to generate vibration levels of 0.089 PPV in/s at 25 feet. The closest vibration-sensitive land use from jacking and receiving pits would be single-family residential and mobile homes, located at a distance of approximately 50 feet. Therefore, as the excavator's vibration would be below the criterion of 0.4 PPV in/s at 25 feet, no areas susceptible to ground-borne vibration would have significant impacts at 50 feet. A horizontal auger would be expected to create the highest vibration levels during tunnel boring. Per Caltrans guidance provided in Section 3.2.1.4, a horizontal auger is expected to generate vibration levels of 0.089 PPV in/s at 25 feet. The closest vibration-sensitive land use from tunnel boring would be single-family residential and mobile homes, located at a distance of approximately 50 feet. Therefore, as the horizontal auger's vibration would be below the criterion of 0.4 PPV in/s at 25 feet, no areas susceptible to ground-borne vibration would have significant impacts at 50 feet. 4.2.2 Mitieation Measures Because impacts related to Issue 2 would be less than significant,no mitigation is required. HELIX AcouatmlA ba m Reportbr the Newhope-Placentia fimk Sever ReplacementProject/July 2015 14 4.2.3 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. 4.3 ISSUE 3: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS 4.3.1 Impact Analysis Project-related noise generation would be primarily limited to short-term construction activities. Pipeline facilities, once installed, are passive and do not generate significant noise. Therefore, a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels would not be expected from the Project and no impacts would occur. 4.3.2 Mitigation Measures Because no impacts would occur related to Issue 3, no mitigation is required. 4.3.3 Significance of Impacts After Mitigation No impacts would occur. HELIX a a Aco tmlA brsm Reportbr the Newhgx-Placentia Tnmk Sever ReplacementPmiect/July 2015 IS 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Bill Vosti Acoustic Analyst Charles Terry Senior Acoustic Specialist Joanne M. Dramko,AICP,GISP Quality Assurance Reviewer HELIX a a Aro ticalA ba m Reportbr the Newhope-Placentia Tnmk Sever ReplacementPmject/July 2015 16 6.0 REFERENCES Anaheim, City of 2015 Municipal Code. Accessed from: htto://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Califomia/anabeim/anaheimmunicivaic ode?f--temolates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:maheim ca Bioacoustics Research Team 1997 Environmental Effects of Transportation Noise, A Case Study: Noise Criteria for Protection of Endangered Passerine Birds. University of California, Davis, Transportation Noise Control Center Technical Report 97-001. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2013 Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. California Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. September. 2004 Traffic Noise Model(TNM). Federal Transit Administration. 2006 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. Fullerton,City of 2015 Municipal Code. Accessed from: htto://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Califomia/fullertn/fallertoncalifomiamu nicimalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htn$3.0$vid=amlegal:fullerton ca 2012 The Fullerton Plan. May 1. HELIX Environmental Planning,Inc. 2015 Biological Resources Letter Report for the Newhope-Placentia Trunk Sewer Replacement Project. June. Integrated Program Management Consultants 2007 Collection System Improvement Plan. Prepared for the Orange County Sanitation District. Orange County Airport Land Use Commission. 2004 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Fullerton Municipal Airport.November 18. U.S. Department of Transportation 2008 Roadway Construction Noise Model. HELIX a a Aco tmlA ba mReportbrtheNewhgx-PlacentiaTnmkSeverReplacementPmiect/July2015 17 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK HELIX a w Aro timlA ba m Report brthe Newhope-Placentia Tnmk Sever Replacement Project/July 2015 18 Appendix A NO MEAS��NT SETS Site Survey Job# Lc-o-oz� Project Name: oc-D\�, Lw� AV --t\,"o- Date: .5 11<' I Site M. in 5�e_ cat�4� Meter: -t- Serial Calibrator: c-OcjSO Sefia#-. 3f,-ey koM- .. ................... ............ .................. ........... . .......... ......... ..... .. yy ................. ..................... ............. .............. ........... .......................... ......................... . ................ E6 temp: IWindSpd, mphlHumi&q: % Stall of Mezisumment: lEndofMeasumment: kot-4- dBA LEQ Cars(tally per 5 cars) Medium Trucks(1yrr) Heavy Trucks(HT) Noise Measurement for Information Only No Through Roadways INo Calibration Analysis Will Be Provided Site Survey Job# L,(xto-a& Project Name: Date: Site#.* fA-L- Erigineer:-:& , , -Z5 Address: Z.401 S,-X Ysc.\z.\ kx,�- Meter LT Serial#-. ocoj-+Ljj Calibrator: L-4cvSo Serial#*. 3(p%% Notes: cask,,),, (-k I." AzW 02, C Sketch. ................. .............. .................. ........... ..............-.. ...... . . ..... .......... . .................. ... ....... K, . ............... . .............. . .......... .....\. -:,,(............ 4 .. ..... ................ .......... I I ...........11.... . .......t ...... --—----- .............. ..... ...................... ...... ................................................. ................ Temp: GWT 1W;;S�,-2 mphlHuniidity: (.G % Start of Measurement: I,," iEnd otMeasurement tcSq (d4-'V dBA LQ Cars (tally per 5 cars) Medium Trucks(MT) Heavy Trucks (HT) Noise Measurement for Information Only No Tbrough Roadways No Calibration Analysis Will Be Provided Site Survey Job# La,.7- Project Name, oc�oAq&- Date iI site M. address: AA C�\� P- (,k Meter: L,-r I Serial#:aoOi-+q% Calibrator c4t.1 s,,w#-. Notes: z i.. fl; 4 ��X u A e- 10.-!, Vk.. o tc Sketch: .................. ... ........ ... ........... ..... .................. ...........-........................ .......... ..... ... ..... . ............... —-------------------------------- ........ ........ ................................. ...... .... ..... ... ... . ....... ........ .... ................ ............ ......... . ..... Temp: N G IWind Spd, mphlHumidity: % Stan of Measurement: it-t-,\ lEnd of Measurement: t% -54A Z) dBA LQ Cars (tally per 5 cars) Medium Trucks(MT) Heavy Trucks(HT) Noise Measurement for Information Only No Through Roadways No Calibration Analysis Will Be Provided Site Survey Job# Lv.o-Oz Project Name: Date:i, i{' Site#: (Z) En ' eer:!,,,, Address: S�,cn `WeSb A.c:— C-1%" OV Meter: Lei' Serial#:oopt7'y I Calibrator: La�ttO Serial#: 3(.W Notes: �)sa oaat zo tS `L: CA S2 M<Rllft � ` ,SWL Y� S Sketch: ..� ' __ .�. ........�....r.._._............... .............................. ..... ....... ...._.............___............ _.._...._.................... ................. £ € € ..._......a........_. _.... _..._o............._. i Temp: `Iy Wind Spd, I--5 m h Humidit : Sto % Start of Measurement: I IS-4- End of Measurement: tzsa- (O z dBA L Q Cars(tally per 5 cats) Medium Trucks(MT) Heavy Trucks(HT) Noise Measurement for Information Only No Through Roadways No Calibration Analysis Will Be Provided Site Survey Job# t-aa-o-z- ProjectNwne: c> -So Date:(ebill, site#-. MEA Address: Snot, a5 mA GO Meter: urt Serial#:�r+41 Calibrator: OM.i G'D Serial#-. 34-rlzir Notes: m�k Sketch: .................. ............... -—.................. ...................... ............. ............................ .......................................... ...................................... .............. .4 ... ............— ...................... ............. .................. ........... ............----------- ................... ................ ................. .................. . .............. ............................................. ............. ........................................ ....................................r......................... Temp: -qLi lWind Spd: mphlHumidity: � % Start of Measurement .%zk a End ofMeasurement t-2-z- c, (o%. :t- dBA LQ Cars(tally per 5 cm) Medium Trucks(MT) Heavy Trucks(HT) Noise Measurement for Information Only No Through Roadways ,No Calibration Analysis Will Be Provided Appendix B TION NOISE CXLCIJLATIONS CONSTRUC Appenidx B-Construction Noise Calculations Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report dat, 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Residential Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator No 40 80.7 50 0 Dump Truck No 40 76.5 50 0 Calculated (dBA) Equipment *Lmax Leq Excavator 80.7 76.7 Dump Truck 76.5 72.5 Total 80.7 78.1 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report dat, 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Sensitive Habitat Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator No 40 80.7 100 0 Dump Truck No 40 76.5 100 0 Calculated(dBA) Equipment -Lmax Leq Excavator 74.7 70.7 Dump Truck 70.4 66.5 Total 74.7 72.1 -Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report dat, 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Church Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator No 40 80.7 275 0 Dump Truck No 40 76.5 275 0 Calculated (dBA) Equipment -Lmax Leq Excavator 65.9 61.9 Dump Truck 61.6 57.7 Total 65.9 63.3 "Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model(RCNM),Version 1.1 Report dat, 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Sensitive Habitat Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator No 40 80.7 400 0 Dump Truck No 40 76.5 400 0 Calculated (dBA) Equipment -Lmax Leq Excavator 62.6 58.7 Dump Truck 58.4 54.4 Total 62.6 60.1 -Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report dat, 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Residential Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator No 40 80.7 75 0 Dump Truck No 40 76.5 75 0 Calculated(dBA) Equipment -Lmax Leq Excavator 77.2 73.2 Dump Truck 72.9 68.9 Total 77.2 74.6 -Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCN M),Version 1.1 Report dati 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Residential Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator No 40 80.7 50 0 Dump Truck No 40 76.5 50 0 Calculated (dBA) Equipment "Lmax Leq Excavator 80.7 76.7 Dump Truck 76.5 72.5 Total 80.7 78.1 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report dat, 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Residential Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator No 40 80.7 1700 0 Dump Truck No 40 76.5 1700 0 Calculated (dBA) Equipment -Lmax Leq Excavator 50.1 46.1 Dump Truck 45.8 41.8 Total 50.1 47.5 "Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report dat, 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Residential Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Excavator No 40 80.7 75 0 Dump Truck No 40 76.5 75 0 Calculated (dBA) Equipment "Lmax Leq Excavator 77.2 73.2 Dump Truck 72.9 68.9 Total 77.2 74.6 "Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report dat, 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Residential Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Generator(<25KVA,VMS!No 50 72.8 50 0 Calculated (dBA) Equipment *Lmax Leq Generator(<25KVA,VMS! 72.8 69.8 Total 72.8 69.8 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report dat, 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Residential Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Generator(<25KVA,VN No 50 72.8 1700 0 Calculated (dBA) Equipment *Lmax Leq Generator(<25KVA,VN 42.2 39.2 Total 42.2 39.2 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report dat, 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Residential Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Generator(<25KVA,W No 50 72.8 28 0 Calculated (dBA) Equipment *Lmax Leq Generator(<25KVA,W 77.8 74.8 Total 77.8 74.8 "Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCN M),Version 1.1 Report dati 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Sensitive Habitat Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Dump Truck No 40 76.5 30 0 Crane No 16 80.6 30 0 Calculated (dBA) Equipment "Lmax Leq Dump Truck 80.9 76.9 Crane 85 77 Total 85 80 *Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report dat, 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Residential Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Dump Truck No 40 76.5 125 0 Crane No 16 80.6 125 0 Calculated (dBA) Equipment -Lmax Leq Dump Truck 68.5 64.5 Crane 72.6 64.6 Total 72.6 67.6 "Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCN M),Version 1.1 Report dat, 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Church Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Dump Truck No 40 76.5 150 0 Crane No 16 80.6 150 0 Calculated (dBA) Equipment "Lmax Leq Dump Truck 66.9 62.9 Crane 71 63 Total 71 66 "Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1 Report dat, 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Residential Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Dump Truck No 40 76.5 1700 0 Crane No 16 80.6 1700 0 Calculated (dBA) Equipment -Lmax Leq Dump Truck 45.8 41.8 Crane 49.9 42 Total 49.9 44.9 "Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCN M),Version 1.1 Report dat, 7/10/2015 Case Descr LRO-02 Descriptior Land Use Residential Senstiive Habitat Equipment Spec Actual Receptor Estimated Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) Dump Truck No 40 76.5 300 0 Crane No 16 80.6 300 0 Calculated (dBA) Equipment "Lmax Leq Dump Truck 60.9 56.9 Crane 65 57 Total 65 60 "Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.