The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-16-2015 Board Meeting Agenda Packet Part 2 Addendum to Orange County Sanitation District Final Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse # 1997101065 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements, Reach B Orange County, California March 18, 2015 Prepared for: t."�_� Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 714-962-2411 Contact: Hardat Khublall, P.E., PMP, CCM CIP Project Manager h khu bla I I(a),ocsd.com Prepared by: N Tetra Tech 17885 Von Kerman Avenue, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614 949-809-5000 Contact: Tom Epperson, P.E., Project Manager, tom.epperson(c),tetratech.com Emilie Johnson, AICP, Environmental Task Manager, emilie.iohnson(a)tetratech.com Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................III 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose and Background................................................................................1-1 1.2 Summary of Findings ......................................................................................1-2 1.3 Lead Agency, Applicant and Consultant .........................................................1-3 1.4 Documents Incorporated by Reference...........................................................1-3 1.5 Discretionary Approvals and Environmental Permits......................................1-3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................2-1 2.1 Project Location and Description.....................................................................2-1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION, THRESHOLDS AND DISCUSSION........3.1 3.1 Environmental Thresholds and Discussion.....................................................3-2 3.1.1 Aesthetics...........................................................................................3-2 3.1.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources...................................................3-3 3.1.3 Air Quality...........................................................................................3-4 3.1.4 Biological Resources..........................................................................3-7 3.1.5 Cultural Resources...........................................................................3-10 3.1.6 Geology and Soils............................................................................3-12 3.1.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................3-14 3.1.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials...................................................3-16 3.1.9 Hydrology/Water Quality..................................................................3-17 3.1.10 Land Use and Planning....................................................................3-19 3.1.11 Mineral Resources...........................................................................3-21 3.1.12 Noise................................................................................................3-21 3.1.13 Population and Housing...................................................................3-24 3.1.14 Public Services.................................................................................3-25 3.1.15 Recreation........................................................................................3-27 3.1.16 TransportationfTraffic.......................................................................3-27 3.1.17 Utilities and Service Systems...........................................................3-30 3.1.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance.................................................3-31 4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES.......................................................................................4-1 5.0 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................5-1 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................6-1 Page Gisle Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Table or Contents List of Tables Table 1. Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions .........................................................3-16 Table 2. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels...................................................3-23 List of Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Project Location Map Figure 3: Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements, Reach B Figure 4: Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements, Reach B—Warner Ave. to Edinger Ave. Figure 5: Proposed Improvements at Red Hill-Mitchell and Newport-Mitchell Intersections Appendices Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report Appendix B Biological Resources Letter Report Page ii Gisle Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Acronyms and Abbreviations ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill ARB Air Resources Board BMPs Best Management Practices CARB California Air Resources Board CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIPP Cured-in-place pipe CH, Methane CO, Carbon Dioxide dBA A-weighted decibels District Orange County Sanitation District EIR Environmental Impact Report EO Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GHG Greenhouse Gases GWR Groundwater Replenishment System H,S Hydrogen Sulfide Gas HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons IS Initial Study IS/Addendum Initial Study/Addendum Lae Day/night average sound level Leq Equivalent Noise Level MCAS Marine Corps Air Station MWD Metropolitan Water District NOx Oxides of Nitrogen Nz0 Nitrous Oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 03 Ozone OCFCD Orange County Flood Control District OCWD Orange County Water District OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OPR Office of Planning and Research PFCs Perfluorocarbons PM Particulate Matter PRC Public Resources Code SB Senate Bill SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SF, Sulfur Hexafluoride sox Sulfur Oxides SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board N Page iii Gisle Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Acronyms and AbbmWations UBC Uniform Building Code USEPA US Environmental Protection Agency USGS U.S. Geological Survey VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe N Page iv Gisle Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B In"duction 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND This Initial Study/Addendum (IS/Addendum) has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Statutes (PRC Section 21000 at. seq.)and CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 to address the environmental effects of the Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B. In 1999, the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD or District) prepared and certified a Strategic Plan Environmental Impact Report(EIR)that assessed the potential impacts of a new Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan identified projects needed to accommodate projected population growth in OCSD's service area and to comply with changing future regulations that affect treatment facilities and effluent quality. OCSD is responsible for safely collecting, treating and disposing of the wastewater generated by 2.5 million people living in a 479 square-mile area of central and northwest Orange County. Gisler- Red Hill is one of twelve trunk sewer systems in OCSD's collection system. OCSD's 1999 Strategic Plan identified the Gisler-Red Hill Sewer System Project, Reach B as needing improvements based on capacity deficiencies as well as age. Improvements to the Gisler-Red Hill Sewer System were originally anticipated to occur between 2000 and 2005. The 1999 Strategic Plan and EIR addressed nearly 47 miles of pipeline replacements (separated into 32 individual projects, of which Gisler-Red Hill Reach B is one), planned almost exclusively within developed city streets, using open trench and jack-and-bore construction. There were 19 manhole rehabilitation projects also analyzed in the EIR. These 32 OCSD pipeline replacement projects and 19 manhole rehabilitation projects constitute the group of Collection System Projects analyzed in the Final EIR. For the most part, environmental impacts were addressed collectively and mitigation provided for the Collection System Projects as a whole, with impact assessments provided by individual projects as needed and appropriate. Most of the impacts identified in the EIR were to result from construction activities. These were considered temporary impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant levels with mitigation measures as identified in the EIR. Improvements to the Gisler-Red Hill sewer system were addressed in the 1999 Strategic Plan EIR at a project level (versus the program level, as many of the 1999 EIR projects planned for later years were addressed). The current project disturbance footprint for the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project exceeds the area analyzed in the 1999 EIR, however. The current project disturbance footprint now incorporates unpaved area along the southeast side of Red Hill Avenue between Warner and Edinger Avenues in the City of Tustin that was not addressed in the EIR. As indicated in the EIR discussion of biological resources (Mitigation Measure 7.3-1), if OCSD modifies a project alignment such that unpaved vegetated area would be disturbed, OCSD would conduct additional CEQA review as appropriate to address potential impacts to biological resources. Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions was not required in 1999 when the Strategic Plan EIR was prepared. Thresholds to evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions have since been incorporated into the CEQA checklist. A technical GHG analysis is contained within this IS/Addendum in order to comply with current CEQA requirements. Other CEQA environmental topics for which no Collection System Project impacts were anticipated and hence eliminated N Page 1-1 Gisle Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Inftduction from analysis in the Collection System section of the EIR (Section 7)are agriculture, hazards/hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation. Discussions for these topics are included in the IS/Addendum in order to confirm that no substantial change from the previous EIR has occurred. This IS/Addendum, prepared for the current or 2014 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B, compares any potential impacts resulting from the current proposed action with impacts of the 1999 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B addressed in the certified Final EIR. This IS/Addendum relies on the use of an Environmental Checklist Form, as suggested in Section 15063 (d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. This IS/Addendum reviews any significant changes in the condition of the site and environmental conditions that have occurred since the EIR was prepared and certified. It also reviews any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified. OCSD will use this IS/Addendum to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the current proposed project prior to making a decision to grant or deny approval of the proposed action. The document will also be used as a source of information by any Responsible Agency with permitting or approval authority over the proposed project in their respective review process. 1.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 state that, in order for an Addendum to be prepared, the Initial Study must find that there is no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified, which shows any of the following: A. 'The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR...; B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; 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 that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative" [Section 15162 (3) (A-D)I. Based upon the environmental checklist prepared for the current project and the supporting checklist responses (IS/Addendum Section 3), implementation of the proposed Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Reach B Project will not result in any environmental impacts, and there will be no substantial change from the previous analysis as contained in the certified Final EIR. Only minor additions and clarifications are required to the Final EIR, and none of the conditions triggering a subsequent EIR are present. OCSD therefore finds that preparation of an Addendum to the certified Final EIR for the 1999 Strategic Plan (SCH # 1997101065) is appropriate and consistent with Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. N Page 1-2 Gisle Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B In"duction 1.3 LEAD AGENCY, APPLICANT AND CONSULTANT OCSD is the Lead Agency in the preparation of this IS/Addendum. OCSD is also the project applicant. The location of OCSD offices and contact information is as follows: Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Contact: Hardat Khublall, P.E., PMP, CCM phone: 714-962-2411 Email: hkhublall@ocsd.com Tetra Tech is the engineering and environmental consultant. 1.4 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE As permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, this IS/Addendum incorporates by reference the certified Final EIR(State Clearinghouse# 1997101065). Information from the EIR document has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s) of this IS/Addendum. The EIR is available for review at OCSD Offices at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708. Section 5, References of this IS/Addendum provide the references used in the preparation of this IS/Addendum. 1.5 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS OCSD, as the lead agency, has approval authority over the following entitlementlapplication that is included as part of the proposed action and addressed in this Addendum: • Approval of the IS/Addendum to the Final EIR for the Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B. This Addendum and the previous certified Final EIR are intended to serve as the environmental documentation for the proposed action. Page 1-3 Gisle Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Project DescHpVon 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Gisler-Red Hill Sewer System, Reach B consists of two parallel sewers: the Trunk and Interceptor. The Gisler-Red Hill Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 7-2 (Trunk) was constructed in 1962 and consists of approximately 16,000 feet of 21-inch to 27-inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP)from Mitchell Avenue to McGaw Avenue. The Interceptor was constructed as part of two contracts. The Red Hill Relief Sewer, Contract No. 7-2-R was constructed in 1969 and consists of approximately 8,000 feet of 36-inch VCP from Mitchell Avenue to Bell Avenue. The Red Hill Interceptor, Contract No. 7-6-4 was constructed in 1972 and consists of approximately 8,000 feet of 27-inch to 42-inch VCP extending the pipe from Bell Avenue to McGaw Avenue. The Trunk and Interceptor have been in service for over 30 years. The current project is proposing to repair and upgrade the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Trunk Sewer System. The project site includes property within the Cities of Tustin and Irvine in Orange County, California, primarily within the right-of-way of Red Hill Avenue. The project vicinity and site location are depicted in Figures 1 and 2. The proposed project is expected to begin in March 2015 and be completed by mid-year 2016. The construction described will take place primarily within the street right-of-way of Red Hill Avenue in the Cities of Tustin and Irvine. The project will include: 1) upsizing approximately 4,900 linear feet of Trunk sewer between Edinger and Warner Avenues to 30-inch and 33-inch diameter pipe to increase capacity; 2) abandoning the replaced portion of the Trunk sewer between Edinger and Warner Avenues; 3) repairing portions of the Trunk and Interceptor sewers with a cured-in-place plastic pipe (CIPP); and 4) rehabilitating or replacing existing Trunk and Interceptor manholes between Mitchell and McGaw Avenues (see Figures 3 and 4). The proposed method of construction for the new Trunk sewer is open trench construction to a depth of approximately 20 feet. The cured-in-place rehabilitation is a trenchless repair that is performed through the manholes for which no excavation is required. Also included in the project are improvements to diversion structures at the following two intersections: Red Hill and Mitchell Avenues, and Newport and Mitchell Avenues (see Figure 5). New pipe and manholes are proposed at these intersections to correct reverse grades in the pipeline and diversion structures. The proposed method of construction is open trench construction to a depth of approximately 20 feet. Bypass pumping is anticipated for the construction of the rehabilitation work and open out construction at the intersections of Red Hill and Edinger Avenues, Red Hill and Mitchell Avenues, and Newport and Mitchell Avenues. Page 2-1 Gisler-R Hill System Improvements.Reach a EnvimlmleWal Thresho aml on.=,. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION, THRESHOLDS AND DISCUSSION Environmental Determination Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record documented in the attached environmental checklist explanation, cited incorporations and attachments: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ® I find that the proposed project constitutes a minor technical change or addition to a project previously analyzed by an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION which was adopted/certified pursuant to State and lead agency CEQA Guidelines where all potentially significant effects were avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Only minor additions andlor clarifications are needed to make the previo s documentation adequate to cover the project which is documented in this add endu o early CEQA document(CEQA§15164). s Date Primed Name Title Orange County Sanitation District Agency M Page&1 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental Thresholds and Discussion 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLDS AND DISCUSSION The following Environmental Analysis Checklist, divided by issue area, is for projects with previously certified/approved environmental documents. This checklist takes into consideration the preparation of a previously prepared environmental document. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the previously prepared document, the OCSD 1999 Strategic Plan Final Program EIR(State Clearinghouse# 1997101065), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Environmental setting and impact discussions from the 1999 certified Final EIR are summarized in the following sections, as appropriate. 3.1.1 Aesthetics Environmental Setting The 1999 certified Final EIR, Section 7.9 addresses aesthetics, and describes the aesthetic setting for the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B site as well as the OCSD service area in general. The service area is generally characterized as urbanized. Collection System Projects were to occur primarily within roadways that are currently graded and paved. The Gisler-Red Hill Reach B site and adjacent area consists of residential, commercial, office-professional, institutional and light industrial uses. The Red Hill alignment has been developed with trees and landscaped vegetation. There is unpaved area southeast of Red Hill Avenue within the right-of-way that borders the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS). The former MCAS is redeveloping with residential, commercial, other supporting uses. Summary of Final EIR Analysis for Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project The EIR indicates that the pipeline replacement corridor along Red Hill Avenue will be seen from residences, schools, commercial, office-professional and industrial uses located along Red Hill. Construction activities and potential removal of landscaping were identified in the EIR as resulting in short-term visual impacts. Aesthetic Mitigation Measures 7.9-1a and 7.9-1b, listed in IS/Addendum Section 4, were identified in the EIR to reduce short-term visual impacts from construction activities to less than significant with mitigation. 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions Tkw Abifityto No Substantial New Mare Substantially Change From Significant Severe Reduce Previous Environmental Issues hnpact Impacts Significant impact Analys" t. Aesthetics Wonldthe project a) Have a substantialadverse eBectona scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially darrege scenic resources,including,but not ❑ ❑ ❑ tirMed to,trees,ruck outcroppings,andhstoric buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ ❑ E quatilyofthe site and its suaroandnsgs? d) Create anewsowce ofsubstantellightorglary Wuch ❑ ❑ ❑ E would adreascly rdEa dayornighttrtre views in the area? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Aesthetic impacts of the 1999 Strategic Plan Collection System Projects were adequately and fully evaluated in the certified Final EIR. Only short-term impacts during construction were identified as a potential aesthetic impact, and L Page 3-2 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental Thresholds and Discussion mitigation was incorporated to reduce these impacts to less than significant with mitigation. Implementing the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project improvements under this 2014 proposal will similarly result in no aesthetics impacts and raise no new substantial issues for aesthetics. The proposed Reach B construction activities would temporarily alter the appearance of the project site; however, after completion of the improvements, streets will be restored to a similar condition as existed prior to construction. Aesthetic impacts from the 2014 proposed project represent no substantial change from the previous Final EIR analysis. 3.1.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Environmental Setting The 1999 Final EIR did not address agriculture and forestry resources for the Collection System Projects, or for the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project in particular, because of the lack of agricultural land and forestry resources within the OCSD service area. No impacts for agriculture and/or forestry resources were therefore noted or analyzed in the EIR. 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions New Ability to Na Substantial New hire Substantially Change From Significant Severe Reduce Previous Environmental Issues Fact hnpacts Significant hnpact Analysis 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources In derermming whcthcr ift"M on agricultural resources are slant enviorttnental effects,lead agencies may rerer to the California Agicuhwal Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Ivbdel(199'n prepared by the Califmnia Depatarent of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing i npacts on agriculture and Famhand In detemtmng whether mgacts to fittest resources,including thnberiand,are significant envronmental eflects,load agencies may refer to mfitmlation compiled by the Califirmia Depararent of Forestry and Fire Protection reg infing the state's inventoryoffirrest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest IegacyAssessment project and the forest carbon rteasurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the Caldome Ait Resources Brant. Would the project: a) Convert Prim Farmland,Unique Fat rdand,or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ Statewide hrrportance(Farmland),as shown on the maps preparedpursuant to the Farmland ripping and bbntormg Program ofthe California.Resources Agency,to inn-agicnlnsel use? b) Cornitict with existing zoning faragtivlhanduse,or a ❑ ❑ ❑ VAbarrson Act contract'? c) ConPoct with existing zoning far,or cause rezoning of;fittest ❑ ❑ ❑ land(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) timberland(as defined in Public Resources Cade section 4526L or tunberhnd zoned Tunberland Production(as defined by GovEmmentCode section 51 BW(g))? d) Result mthe loss offorest land orconversin offorest land ❑ ❑ ❑ tonon-forestuse? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ ❑ ❑ due to their location ornat re,could result in conversion of Farmland,to nonagn uturalwe or conversion offnest land to non&rest use? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Implementing the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project under this 2014 proposal will similarly result in no agriculture and/or forestry resource impacts and raise no new substantial issues for agriculture and/or forestry resources. A similar N Page 3-3 Gisle Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental nussholds and Discussion lack of agriculture and forestry resources and impacts for the 2014 proposed project represents no substantial change from the previous Final EIR analysis. 3.1.3 Air Quality Environmental Setting A project-specific Air Quality-Greenhouse Gas Technical Report, contained in Appendix A, has been prepared by Tetra Tech to provide an analysis of potential air quality and global climate change impacts related to the proposed 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project. The environmental setting and impact discussion for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are addressed separately in this IS/Addendum in Section 3.1.7. The OCSD service area, and more specifically the Gisler-Red Hill Project site, lies within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin or SCAB), The SCAB is surrounded by mountains trapping the air and its pollutants in the valleys or basins below. This area includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. Bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, the SCAB is an area of high air pollution potential. The regional climate within the Basin is considered semi-arid and is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. Air quality within the Basin is influenced by a wide range of emissions sources—such as dense population centers, heavy vehicular traffic, and industry. The annual average temperature varies throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to mid 60s to over 100 degrees during the summer, measured in Fahrenheit ff). Typically the hottest months are July and August, and the coldest months are December and January. The majority of annual rainfall in the Basin occurs between December and March. Summer rainfall is minimal and generally limited to scattered thundershowers in coastal regions. The annual average total rainfall in the SCAB area is 9.1 inches. The Basin experiences a persistent temperature inversion, which is characterized by increasing temperature with increasing altitude. This inversion limits the vertical dispersion of air contaminants, holding them relatively near the ground. As the sun warms the ground and the lower air layer, the temperature of the lower air layer approaches the temperature of the base of the inversion (upper) layer until the inversion layer finally breaks, allowing vertical mixing with the lower layer. Aside from a persistent temperature inversion, the vertical dispersion of air contaminants in the Basin is also affected by wind conditions. The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations. Conversely, on days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are the lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas in the Basin are transported eastward, predominantly into Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. SCAB has very low average wind speeds; the dominant daily wind pattern is an onshore 8 to 12 mph during the day and offshore 3 to 5 mph winds during the night. These wind patterns are disrupted occasionally by winter storms or strong northeasterly Santa Ana winds from the mountains and deserts northeast of the SCAB. These Santa Ana winds, which are strong and dry north or northeasterly winds that occur during the fall and winter months, disperse air contaminants differently through the Basin, generally resulting in worse air conditions in the western parts of the Basin. Santa Ana conditions tend to last for several days at a time. N Page 3-4 Gisle Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B EnWnuunental nussholds and Discussion Air pollutant emissions associated with the Collection Systems Projects, as described in the 1999 EIR Air Quality Section (Section 7.5), can occur due to: 1) emissions of odorous gases at pumping station locations, primarily hydrogen sulfide (HzS) gas and other compounds associated with wastewater; and 2) presence of sulfides above a certain threshold in trunk lines. OCSD maintains an on-going odor control program to ensure that sewer odors in the communities served by the trunk lines and pump stations are minimized. Sensitive Receptors The portion of the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B sewer line that requires replacement is located under Red Hill Avenue in the Cities of Irvine, Tustin, and Santa Ana. Surrounding land uses include residential, commercial, office-professional, light industrial and institutional uses. The former MCAS, located southeast of Red Hill, is currently redeveloping with residential, commercial, and institutional uses. Multiple schools are located along or near Red Hill Avenue in the location of the project site. Nearby sensitive receptors include single-and multi-family residences, and the adjacent and nearby schools (Jeane Thorman Elementary School, A.G. Currie Middle School, Heritage Elementary School, Sycamore High School and Irvine Valley College's Advanced Technology and Education Park). Summary of Final EIR Analysis for Gisler-Red Hill Reach IS Project The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the local air districts (SCAB for the OCSD service area)develop and approve air quality plans to demonstrate how and when California will attain air quality standards established under both the federal and California Clean Air Acts. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction over the South Coast Air Basin. Data collected within the SCAB from air monitoring stations show that ambient standards for ozone and particulate matter are exceeded at some locations in the region. As a result, CARB has designated the Air Basin as "Nonattainment"for ozone and particulate matter(PMto and PM2.5) and the USEPA has designated the Air Basin as"Nonattainment"for PM2, The 1999 Final EIR indicates that total air emissions associated with the Collection System Projects, which would include emissions from haul trucks, construction worker trips, and excavation are anticipated to remain below the thresholds of significance for all the criteria pollutants if each improvement project is considered individually. The Final EIR identified construction activities associated with improvements to OCSD's Collection System as generating a less than significant impact with mitigation due to short-term emissions of air pollutants, including dust and criteria pollutants, from excavation, installation and/or replacement activities. Construction emission impacts were estimated to occur for an average of three to four weeks within one block of construction activities. Potential impacts on sensitive land uses in the vicinity of construction sites from construction-related dust during the excavation and other pipeline improvements were identified. Air Quality Mitigation Measures 7.5.1a-1c, addressing dust control, exhaust emissions and truck emission reductions (listed in IS/Addendum Section 4), were provided in the EIR to reduce short-term air quality impacts from construction activities to less than significant with mitigation. Operation of the collection systems, including the sewer lines and the pump stations, was anticipated to generate minimal quantities of air pollutants and generate a less than significant impact. No mitigation was N Page 3-5 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Envlronmental Thresholds and Discussion deemed necessary. Odor emissions generated from operation of the collection systems were also considered a less than significant impact for which no mitigation was required. 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions New Ability to No Substantial Fkw IDbre Substantially Change From Significant Severe Reduce Previous Environmental Issues Impact Impacts Significant impact Analysis 3. Air Quality )&hem available,the significance criteria established by the applcablc air quali y management or airpolmtion control district maybe relied upon an make the mkowmg determinations. uld the project a) ConPoMuvhorobsuwmy>lem mtbnoftheapplcableav ❑ ❑ ❑ E <Nartypian? b) Wlawmyavgmldysmndardorc ffibutesubstantiallym ❑ ❑ ❑ E an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Resuk in a cumulafimlycomidemblc wt in=ase ofmy El E] ElE criteria po@dant for WwIt the project region is nonettawnen[ under an applicable fedemlor state ambient nor qual ly standard (iochldig oleasug en�ssioos,vfiich exceed quan[Oatise damsholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive mceptom m substantialpoDAant ❑ ❑ ❑ E concentrations? e) Oeate objectionable odors aBecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ E people? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The air quality impacts of the Collection System Projects proposed as part of OCSD's 1999 Strategic Plan, adequately and fully evaluated in the Final EIR, were determined to be less than significant and less than significant with mitigation. The 2014 Air Quality-Greenhouse Gas Technical Report provided in Appendix A confirms that these same conclusions apply to the current proposed Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project. Implementing the Gisler-Red Hill Improvements under the 2014 proposed project will result in similar impacts on air quality by: 1) not conflicting with applicable Air Quality Plans, policies and standards; 2) not exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and 3) not creating objectionable odors during construction or operation. EIR- identified mitigation for air quality (Measures 7.5.1a-1c, listed in IS/Addendum Section 4)will apply to the current project to assure that air quality impacts are maintained at a less than significant level. Modeling was performed for the 2014 Air Quality-GHG Technical Report to confirm that sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. A minimum distance of 50 feet from the construction project footprint was used in the modeling run to assess possible air quality impacts on the nearest sensitive receptors: • The Jeans Thorman Elementary School is located at the intersection of Sycamore and Red Hill Avenues, on the southwest corner. The playground for Jeans Thorman Elementary School backs up to Red Hill Avenue at Sycamore, with a distance between the boundary of the playground and the project site across Red Hill estimated at 80 feet. • A. G. Currie Middle School abuts the Thorman Elementary School on the northwest edge, and lies further from Red Hill Avenue and the project site at a distance of.2 miles. N Page 3-6 Gisle Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental nnesholds and Discussion • Additional schools are located on the former MCAS at Valencia and Red Hill Avenues: Heritage Elementary School, Sycamore High School (for adult and concurrent students), and Irvine Valley College's Advanced Technology and Education Park, with the minimum distance between these school facilities and the project site estimated at 50 feet. The 2014 proposed project raises no new substantial issues for air quality, and air quality impacts from the 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project represent no substantial change from the previous analysis. 3.1.4 Biological Resources Environmental Setting The 1999 Final EIR, Section 7.3 addresses biological resources. The EIR generally characterizes the OCSD service area that lies within the northwestern section of Orange County as urbanized with few native plants or wildlife remaining in the area. Additional information on the biological resources setting for the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project has been provided by a biological resource subcontractor, PCR, engaged for this IS/Addendum to evaluate the expanded project disturbance footprint that now incorporates unpaved area along the southeast side of Red Hill between Warner and Edinger Avenues. PCR identified landscaped areas consisting of ornamental shrubs, trees, and some groundcover along the southeast side of Red Hill Avenue (PCR's letter report is contained in Appendix B). Additional detail regarding this location is provided below. On the northwest side of Red Hill Avenue, there are patches and strips of landscaping along some sections of the street frontage. The area where the project would require ground disturbance of an unpaved area lies within a narrow strip along the southeast side of existing Red Hill Avenue. The section between Edinger and Valencia Avenues is covered by ornamental, mostly non-native vegetation that is regularly maintained. The vegetation is comprised of a variety of groomed grass lawns, low groundcovers, shrubs, hedges, and ornamental trees including short trees such as carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides)and jacaranda (Jacaranda mimositolia), generally less than 10 feet in height, and some taller trees including lemon scented eucalyptus (Corymbia citriodora), Aleppo pine (Pinus halapensis), and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), which may exceed 60 feet in height. In this segment along Red Hill, the trees appear to be regularly pruned and exhibit fairly sparse, open canopies. The section along the southeast side of Red Hill from Valencia Avenue to Warner Avenue does not appear to be maintained regularly, however. Ground cover is generally lacking or has been neglected. Many trees also occur in this section such as carrotwood, Peruvian pepper(Schinus mol/e),juniper(Juniperus sp.), and lemon scented eucalyptus. In general, the tree canopies are more dense than the section to the north (from Valencia to Edinger), because the area is not subject to regular maintenance. Summary of Final EIR Analysis for Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project The Final EIR analysis for biological resources for Collection System Projects is limited in scope based on the fact that the OCSD service rea is predominantly urbanized, and most of the Collection System Projects will be located within developed city streets which are graded and paved. No impact to biological resources was identified if projects occur within paved areas. The EIR indicated, however, that if final project alignments are revised to include an undeveloped area or open space, potential impacts to biological resources could occur; in these cases, OCSD would conduct additional CEQA investigation as needed to clarify and address impacts N Page 3-7 Gisler-Rod Hill Syslem Improvements,Reach B Envlronmental Thresholds and Discussion to biological resources. Biological Resource Mitigation Measure 7.3-1 (listed later in this section and in Section 4) requiring future CEQA review was included in the EIR to address potential impacts to biological resources for projects where an alignment includes unpaved, undeveloped park or open space area. Short-term noise generation and construction activity were not expected to significantly alter the existing conditions within the urban city streets where existing wildlife has adapted to an elevated level of commotion. 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions Mw Maltyto No Substantial New fibre I Substantially Change From Significant Severe Reduce Previous Fact Impacts Significant hnpact Analysis 4. Biological Resources Would the project: a) lbw a subsmnmladwme etEet cidierd meflyortluough ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in"I or reg'io al plans, polices,orn;gulafions,or by the Calffimia Deparfirent of Fish and WSNItle or US.Fish and Wildh'de Service? t" b) Have a substantial adverse died many riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ ❑ other sensitive nzhual courrunity identified in beat or regional plans,polices,and regulations or by the CatiWmra Departrrent ofFsh and VYWY*crUS.Fish and VYW*Service? c) Have a substantial adverse a&ct on Edemlyprotected ❑ ❑ ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act (inebdhrg,but not firnited to,marsh,uemalpool,coastal,eta.) through diem removal,filing,hydrological mtenupban,orother rreans? d) Interfere subsunfiallywith the rroverrentofanynatiue ❑ ❑ ❑ resident cr nugratoryfsh orwildI&species crwith established native resident ornngratorywildlik corridors,or r pede the use ofwrldl&muserysiles? e) Gangeroth anybcalpolices or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑ biological resources,such as a tree preservation pohcyor ordinance? 0 Corrttictwvh the provisions ofan adopted llabdat ❑ ❑ ❑ Comervaton Plan,NaWmICommmmily Cmervatbn Plan,or otherappmwd bmL regvmt m state hablat conservation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. A site-specific biological resource analysis was conducted as part of this IS/Addendum for the 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project. In compliance with EIR Biological Resource Mitigation Measure 7.3-1 requiring additional CEQA review, PCR performed a technical analysis, contained in Appendix B, in order to clarify and address potential impacts to biological resources associated with the modification to the alignment that now includes unpaved area. The unpaved area now to be affected that lies southeast of Red Hill between Warner and Edinger Avenues is not recognized specifically as a park or open space, but it does contain trees that may provide nesting opportunities. PCR concluded that, although the existing landscape shrubs and trees within this southeast unpaved area may offer some limited nest opportunities to urban-adapted avian species, the project area N Page 3-8 Gisle Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental M sholds and Discussion contains no areas of natural vegetation or habitat that could support any special status species of wildlife or plants. The project area is highly developed and situated in a densely populated urban area and no significant biological resources are known or expected to occur in the project area or immediate vicinity. The PCR analysis, summarized below, confirms that the 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project represents no substantial change from the previous 1999 EIR analysis. Implementing the sewer system improvements under the 2014 proposal will result in similar impacts for biological resources at a level of less than significant with mitigation. The 2014 project will not raise any new substantial issues for biological resources, nor would it result in any new biological impacts or increase the severity of biological resource impacts identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the 2014 project on biological resources represent no substantial change from the previous analysis. A summary of the recent biological resource analysis performed by PCR follows. A PCR biologist conducted a pedestrian survey of the area on the southeast side of Red Hill Avenue, the only unpaved area affected by the 2014 proposed project. The intent of the survey was to observe and characterize the existing conditions and evaluate the potential for plants and wildlife to occur in the area potentially affected by the planned Gisler-Red Hill Reach B system improvements. No nests were observed during the brief survey effort. However, PCR noted that, despite the traffic noise and disturbance along the road, some species of native songbirds that are well adapted to urban areas (e.g., house finch, northern mockingbird, American robin, etc.) may still nest in the landscaped areas, particularly in the more dense shrubs and tree canopies found between Warner and Valencia Avenues. Notably, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service submitted comments in response to the 1999 Strategic Plan Draft EIR that recognized the potential for the project to impact nesting birds, even in highly urbanized areas, stating as part of Comment 11 in their letter included in the Final EIR: "Even in highly urbanized areas, flood control channels can sustain wetlands and provide habitat for wildlife. Direct impacts to habitats should be avoided and minimized and appropriate measures should be taken to mitigate any unavoidable significant impacts. Also, in areas with the potential for nesting birds (e.g., trees present), construction should be conducted outside of the nesting season. Alternately, a biological monitor should survey prior to, and/or during, construction to ensure that no nests are disturbed or removed as a result of the project." The Gisler-Red Hill Project area contains no flood control channels or wetlands, but there are sizable trees and shrubs that could provide nesting habitat, at least for a few native species. It is important to recognize that while an activity that results in the loss of a nest of a relatively common bird species should not be considered a significant impact to biological resources under CEQA, it would still be a violation of both the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code. The response to this U.S. Fish and Wildlife comment in the Final EIR noted that"mitigation measure 7.3-1 states that construction projects that could impact undeveloped areas or open space would require additional biological surveys and impact assessments. This would include the removal of trees along construction corridors within the Service Area." Spectrally, Mitigation Measure 7.3-1: Additional CEQA Review stipulates that: N Page 3-9 Gisle Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B EnWnuunental Thresholds and Discussion If in the future, as OCSD develops the design of each specific collection system project for implementation, a project alignment includes unpaved, undeveloped park or open space area, OCSD will conduct additional CEQA review as needed to clarify and address potential impacts to biological resources. The PCR study fulfills the requirement for a supplemental biological survey and satisfies the additional CEQA review requirement established by Mitigation Measure 7.3-1. PCR conclusions and recommendations are provided below (with the full text contained in Appendix B). PCR Conclusions and Recommendations The Gisler— Red Hill System Improvements, Reach B Project will encroach into the existing landscaped area immediately adjacent to the existing paved road surface on the southeast side of Red Hill Avenue. Construction will require removal of some of the existing trees and shrubs. Since some of the trees and shrubs that will be removed could be used as nest sites by native bird species that are adapted to living in urban areas, the potential exists for the project to result in direct impacts to nesting birds if vegetation is removed while birds are actively nesting. Such impacts would not be considered biologically significant since the potentially affected species are not considered rare or endangered. Nevertheless, such potential loss would be avoided by maintaining compliance with existing State and federal regulations protecting nearly all native bird species. No specific mitigation or monitoring would be needed under Biological Resource Mitigation Measure 7.3-1 other than this analysis conducted by and for the project by PCR. However, in order to maintain compliance with the State Fish and Game Code and the federal MBTA, PCR recommends that project mitigation include a provision to remove the vegetation within the project footprint(i.e., "clear and grub") between August 31 and March 1 outside the nesting season. Final EIR Mitigation Measure 6.3-1: Nesting Birds that follows addresses this recommendation: Measure 6.3-1: Nesting Birds. Prior to the removal of healthy trees on site, a biologist knowledgeable of birds will survey the trees to determine if active nests are present. If nests of sensitive species are present, tree removal will be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. According to PCR, if surveys identify early nesting activities (e.g., nest building, territory protection behavior)or nests, the biologist may contact the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and request authorization to restrict nesting activities if no eggs or nestlings are present. If eggs or nestlings are found, the activity must not disturb the active nest(s) until the young have fledged or the nest is observed to be inactive. 3.1.5 Cultural Resources Environmental Setting The 1999 Final EIR, Section 7.10 addresses cultural resources and describes the cultural setting for the OCSD service area. Relevant portions of the EIR discussion are summarized here. Archaeological Resource Management Corporation conducted a Cultural Resources Assessment of the project area in which OCSD's proposed pipeline rehabilitation and replacement projects would occur to support the 1999 EIR cultural resources analysis. The purpose of the Assessment was to identify any known cultural resources that could be affected by the proposed improvements. Field studies were not deemed necessary, since each of the N Page 3-10 Gisle Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental nussholds and Discussion proposed pipeline and replacement projects would occur within paved streets or in other previously disturbed areas. A records and literature search was performed, and USGS maps were reviewed. The records and literature search resulted in a series of observations related to prehistoric and early historic land uses for the various project components. Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Projects A and B were grouped together for the purposes of the Final EIR Cultural Resources Assessment. The 1894 Santa Ana USGS quad sheet was reviewed and showed light to moderate development in the Tustin area. The Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railroad (Los Angeles and San Diego Branch) passed through the area. The Santa Ana and Newport Railroad served the community of Tustin on its way to Newport Beach. There were a few unimproved roads with occasional structures alongside them. The 1901 USGS quad sheet (reprinted 1945) was also reviewed and showed that the Atchison, Topeka, &Santa Fe Railroad was now the Southern California Surf Line. Southern Pacific (Newport Beach Branch) replaced the Santa Ana and Newport Railroad. Newport Avenue followed the old route of the Southern Pacific Railroad where it turned westward toward Newport Beach. Some additional unimproved roads and streets were observed outside the moderate street grid in the City of Tustin, founded in 1927. The records and literature review indicated that seven archaeological surveys had been conducted within a one-quarter mile radius of the 1999 Gisler-Red Hill A-B Project site, and that four prehistoric archaeological sites had been recorded. One of these sites (CA-ORA-300)was identified as having buried remains. No listings of historic properties on either federal or State registers were found within a one-quarter mile radius of the combined A-B project site. Summary of Final EIR Analysis for Gisler-Red Hill Reach IS Project The Final EIR identified two impacts on cultural resources for the proposed Collection Systems Projects (pp. 7.10-16, -17). both considered less than significant with mitigation: 1. Implementation of the proposed collection system improvements may affect known, significant archaeological resources. Subsurface construction in areas containing recorded prehistoric archaeological sites could unearth significant prehistoric site deposits. EIR Measure 7.10.1 (see IS/Addendum Section 4)mitigates potential impacts on known, significant archaeological resources to less than significant. 2. Implementation of the proposed collection system improvements may affect unknown, potentially significant archaeological resources. It is possible that previously unknown significant deposits may be encountered during construction of proposed collection system improvements. The Gisler-Red Hill A-B Project was given a "very high' probability of impacting unknown prehistoric archaeological resources during project construction (Final EIR page 7.10-18). EIR Measures 7.10.2a-2c (see IS/Addendum Section 4) mitigate potential impacts on unknown, potentially significant archaeological resources to less than significant. Page 3-11 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Envlroomantal Thresholds and Discussion 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions New Abilityto No Substantial ew Nbre Substantially Change From WSLig'nificant Severe Reduce Previous Environmental Issuet Impacts Significant Impact Analys' 5. Cultural Resources Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofa ❑ ❑ ❑ hstorical resource as defined in§15064.59 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ❑ ❑ ❑ mamhaeobgicalreso pmsuantw§15064.5? c) Drectlyormdnectlydestroya unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geologic Eatue? d) Dstub anyhunan mm ms,mbdutg chose mteved outside ❑ ❑ ❑ ofbmral cemeteries? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis Implementation of the 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project will similarly result in less than significant cultural resource impacts with mitigation and raise no new substantial issues for cultural resources. Should workers encounter any unidentified resources during subsurface activities for the proposed project, they will be required to follow cultural resource mitigation identified in the Final EIR. Compliance with the provisions of Title 14, California Code of Regulations 15064.5(e)will also ensure that, in the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the required steps would be followed. Cultural resource impacts from the 2014 Reach B Project represent no substantial change from the previous analysis. 3.1.6 Geology and Soils Environmental Setting The 1999 Final EIR, Section 7.6 addresses geology and soils, and describes the geology and soils setting for the OCSD service area. The EIR indicates that the OCSD service area is located in a seismically active region of California. Based on proximity, two fault zones, the Newport-Inglewood and Whittier-Elsinore fault zones, are identified in the EIR as being relevant to the Collection Systems Projects. Both fault zones have been designated as active by the California Department of Mines and Geology under the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Fault Zoning Act: • Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone: Despite the lack of recent surface displacements of known faults along the zone and the absence of extensive damage in recent years, the fault zone is considered a significant potential hazard to the highly developed Southern California coastal area. • Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone: This northwest trending fault zone extends approximately 185 miles from the Los Angeles Basin in Southern California southeasterly across the international border into Mexico as the Laguna Salads fault. Earthquakes in Orange County could potentially produce strong groundshaking and could be experienced within the OCSD service area. Groundshaking is partly related to the size of an earthquake, the distance from the epicenter, and the response of the geologic materials at the site. N Page 3-12 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental M sholds and Discussion Soils within the Final EIR study area encompassing the OCSD service area were identified as alluvial fan and floodplain soils composed of various amounts of sand, silt, and clay. The sandy surface soils are underlain by peat bog and a high water table, which are susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction is the rapid transformation of saturated, loose, fine-grained sediment (e.g., silt and sand)to a fluid-like state because of earthquake groundshaking. Liquefaction has resulted in substantial loss of life and injury, plus damage to property, roads and infrastructure. Settlement is the gradual downward movement of an engineered structure due to compaction of unconsolidated material below the foundation. Strong ground motions that occur during earthquakes are capable of inducing forms of adjustments such as settlement. Summary of Final EIR Analysis for Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project The Final EIR identified one geology impact for the proposed Collection Systems Projects at the operational level, considered less than significant with mitigation (p. 7.6-3): Project facilities would be located in areas susceptible to primary and secondary seismic hazards (ground- shaking, liquefaction, settlement). Damage to facilities could result in the event of a major earthquake. Potential damage to pipelines from seismic activity include rupture and subsequent underground and surface spillage of raw sewage. EIR Measure 7.6.1 (see IS/Addendum Section 4) mitigates potential impacts to less than significant by indicating OCSD compliance with the most recent edition of the California Building Code, OCSD specifications and requirements, and all applicable seismic engineering guidelines. OCSD has also implemented an Integrated Emergency Response Program covering worker safety, spill prevention, emergency response, and hazardous materials management. OCSD would take the appropriate measures to minimize public hazard should a spillage occur. 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions New Abilityto No Substantial Abw Nbre Substantially Change Form Sig�iScant Severe Reduce Previous Environmental Issues hnpact Impacts Significantlmpact Malys' 6. oils Rbnklihe project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse elects,inchuding the risk ofloss,injuiyordeath hrvuhmng: ) Rupture ofa kuwwn eadhqualo fault as delineated on ❑ ❑ ❑ the most recent Alquist-Pdolo Eatdxpake Fain Zoning hhp sued by the State Geologist for the area or based on odiersubsmntalevider ofaknownfain? Relbrue Division ofNkes and Geology Speciall ublicatnn 42. k) Strongseisnuegmundshakmg? ❑ ❑ ❑ E m) Sesrrdcrelated ground glue,including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ E iv) landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ E b) Resuk in substantial sod croskn or the loss oftopsodl ❑ ❑ ❑ E c) Be locatedon a geologic unitorsod that is unstable,"that ❑ ❑ ❑ E would become unstable as a tesuk ofthe project and potentially resul in on-or off-sde landslide,lateral spreading subsidence, li uelacnon or collapse? N Page 3-13 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental Thresholds and Discussion New Abilityto 1,b Substantial New Nbte Substantially Change From ignifieanf Severe Reduce Previous Environtnenfal Issues Immact Facts Significant Impact Malysis 7the Be bested on expansive sod,as defined kr Table 18-1-Bof ❑ ❑ ❑ UrilionnBuddingCode(1994),seating subsbntialrsks toor property? Have sod inmpable ofadequately supporfi g the useof ❑ictamsorakematiwwaste waterdisposalsystemswhereers are riot available for the disposal lot water? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The impacts on geology and soils of the Collection Systems Projects, adequately and fully evaluated in the Final EIR, were determined to be less than significant with mitigation. Implementing the 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project will result in similar impacts on geology and soils, and raises no new substantial issues for geology and soils. Geology and soil impacts from the 2014 Reach B Project represent no substantial change from the previous analysis. 3.1.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Setting Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole, including changes in temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Greenhouse gases (GHG) include, but are not limited to: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (03), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SFe). GHGs are the result of both natural and anthropogenic activities. Forest fires, decomposition, industrial processes, landfills, and consumption of fossil fuels for power generation, transportation, heating, and cooking are the primary sources of GHG emissions. Executive Order S-3-05 (EO), signed by the Governor of California in June 2005, established Statewide reduction targets for greenhouse gases. Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, 2006 (AS 32), signed into law in September 2006, establishes a State goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, representing a 25 percent reduction from forecasted emission levels. Senate Bill 97 (SB 97)was approved by the Governor of California in August 2007. SB 97 requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR)to prepare, develop, and transmit guidelines to the Resources Agency for the feasible mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, as now required under CEQA. The adopted amendments were filed with the Secretary of State, and became effective March 18, 2010. These CEQA Guidelines amendments provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in draft CEQA documents. The greenhouse gas guidelines fit within the existing CEQA framework by amending existing Guidelines to reference climate change. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 assists agencies in determining the significance of greenhouse gas emissions, and calls for a "good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project." The amendments encourage lead agencies to consider many factors in performing a CEQA analysis and preserve lead agencies' discretion to make their own determinations based upon substantial evidence. The amendments also encourage N Page 3-14 Gis!e Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental Mnisholds and Discussion public agencies to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs from which to tier when they perform individual project analyses. Summary of Final EIR Analysis for Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions was not required in 1999 when the Strategic Plan EIR was prepared. Thresholds to evaluate GHG emissions have been incorporated into the CEQA checklist since 2010. A technical GHG analysis is contained within this IS/Addendum (summarized below and in Appendix A) in order to comply with current CEQA requirements. 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Environmentallssues trnpact Incorporated Irroact No hnpact 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project a) Gcncratc greenhouse gas enrosions,either directly ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or indirectly,that mayhaw a sigrrificant mgact on the envvomnent? b) Conflict v&anyapplicable plan,poficyorreg lation ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of an agency adopted for the purpose ofoducing the emissions ofgreenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact. A technical GHG analysis is contained within this IS/Addendum (summarized below and provided in Appendix A) in order to comply with current CEQA requirements. The Air Quality-Greenhouse Gas Technical Report(Tetra Tech, October 2014) evaluates potential air quality and global climate change impacts related to the proposed Gisler- Red Hill Reach B Project. As indicated in the Technical Report, the GHG emissions generated during construction by the proposed Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project do not exceed SCAQMD's established thresholds. The proposed project also does not conflict with but is supportive of the State's goals related to the reduction of greenhouse gases. Proposed project impacts on GHG emissions are considered less than significant. (Note that the options above for determining impact significance for greenhouse gas emissions have reverted to the traditional CEQA checklist choices since GHG emissions were not analyzed in the previous EIR and cannot be compared to a previous analysis.)A summary of the recent GHG analysis is provided in the following paragraphs. Tetra Tech calculated emissions of GHGs for both years of Project construction (2015 and 2016). Results are presented in Table 1 that follows. As shown, the highest net increase in temporary GHG emissions from on-road mobile source emissions and on site construction equipment relative to the SCAQMD GHG threshold would be well below 10,000 metric tons per year. Construction GHG emissions amortized over a 30-year lifetime is 87 metric tons of COze. For construction-phase project emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of the project. As indicated in Table 1, the GHG emissions do not exceed the established annual threshold in either construction year, resulting in a less than significant impact. The GHG emissions estimates presented in Table 1 do not take into account the GHG-reducing construction practices that will be implemented as part of dust suppression techniques included in Final EIR Air Quality Mitigation Measure 7.5-1a (see Section 4 of this IS/Addendum). N Page 3-15 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental Thresholds and Discussion Implementation of these construction measures would reduce GHG emissions, and would represent an improvement above "business as usual:' Table 1. Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions CO2e Metric Tons Emission Source 2015 2016 Total GHG Emissions a 795.72 558.42 1,354 SCAQMD GHG Threshold(Industrial 10,000 10,000 - Projects) Over/Under Threshold? 9,204 9,442 Exceed Threshold? No No Compiled using the CALEEMOD emissions inventory model. The output files are provided in IS/Addendum Appendix A in the Appendix to the Air Quality-Greenhouse Gas Technical Report. 3.1.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting The 1999 Final EIR did not address hazards and hazardous materials for the Collection System Projects, or for the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project in particular, in a standalone EIR section because of the lack of hazard and hazard materials considerations associated with the Collection System Projects. The only hazardous materials discussion contained in the EIR concerning the Collection Systems Projects is found within EIR Section 7.7 Hydrology and Water Resources, and is addressed in Section 3.1.9 of this IS/Addendum. 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions New Able y New Ivbre Subsfanfialty angeP Significant Severe Reduw Previous 7aw nvironmental Issues hr�ac[ firmacts Significan[Impac[ Avalya' azardous Materials roject. a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ t through the routine transport,use,or disposal of materials? a aign rcanthazanl to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the hkety release ofhanukats materials into the environment? c) Eirkhamrdow emssi n orhandle hazardous m ❑ ❑ ❑ amtelyhamrdom materials,substances,mr sw v&li n one-q[taner mile ofan existing or proposed school? d) Be locatedon a site which is includedoo a listof ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardousmaterialssitescompiledpursuantto Govern m Cade Section 65962.5 and,as a resuk would d create a significant hazard to the public or the envvonrrent? c) 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 orpublic use airport,would the project result in a saktyhazard for people residing orworkmg in the project area? 0 For a project within the vicinity ofa primate airstrip,would ❑ ❑ ❑ the project result in a saktyhazard for people residing or %arki ng in the project area? N Page 3-16 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental nussholds and Discussion New Abilitym No Substantial New Mire Substantially Change From Significant Severe Reduce Previous Envhorrmentallssues lapact hapacts Significant hap Analysis g) firpart anplementatinn ofor ph}rskafiy interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted cLrgencyresponse plan orerrergency euacuatbn phn? h) Expose people orsWcdnes to a significant risk ofmss, ❑ ❑ ❑ urjmyordeathm lvmgwildbndfoes,mkidmgwhere wildlands are adjacent w urbanized areas mr hem residences are mternw ed with vn4llands? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Implementing the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project under this 2014 proposal will similarly result in no hazards/hazardous materials impacts and raise no new substantial issues for hazards/hazardous materials. A similar lack of hazards/hazardous materials impacts for the 2014 proposed project represents no substantial change from the previous Final EIR analysis. 3.1.9 Hydrology/Water Quality Environmental Setting The 1999 Final EIR, Sections 4.9 and 7.7, addresses hydrology and water resources, and describes the hydrology/water resource setting for the regional area and the OCSD service area, and as it relates to the Gisler-Red Hill project site. Surface Water/Flooding and Storm Drainage Surface flows in the project area include the Santa Ana River and its tributaries. Surface water and groundwater in the upper basin flow through Prado Dam, at the head of the Santa Ana River Canyon, and down to the Orange County coastal basin. The Santa Ana River Basin is the largest watershed in Southern California with over 3,200 square miles. Orange County is vulnerable to chronic flooding during the peak rainfall periods. Since 1989, however, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has significantly reduced flood risks on the Santa Ana River. Concrete-lined levees now exist along much of the river and many tributaries. Flood control channels throughout OCSD's service area have been fortified to further minimize flood risk to the portion of Orange County that is susceptible to flooding. Flood prone areas still remain along the lower Santa Ana River, however. The Gisler-Red Hill Reach B site falls within the area designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a flood prone area. The flood control effort to protect Orange County is divided into three major areas: the Tri- County system, the regional system, and local drainage programs: • Tri-County System (San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange): The Santa Ana River Basin watershed is separated into an upper and a lower basin divided by Prado Dam and Reservoir. Improvements to Prado Dam in recent years and expanded Reservoir capacity have increased flood protection for downstream areas. • Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) is empowered to construct and maintain flood control facilities to prevent or minimize loss of life and property caused by flooding, and for water conservation. Storm drains within the OCSD service area, owned and maintained by the cities in which they are located and addressed below, eventually drain into County flood control channels owned and maintained by OCFCD. Page 3-17 Gisle Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental Thresholds and Discussion Local Drainage Program: Orange County's Local Drainage Program provides for construction of storm drain facilities in the unincorporated portions of the County in order to correct localized flooding problems which are not of sufficient magnitude to include in the Flood Control District Program. A similar local drainage program is carried out by each of the 27 cities in the county, including Irvine, Tustin, and Santa Ana where the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B site is located. Groundwater The local water supply is dependent upon the safe yield of the groundwater basin. The Orange County Groundwater Basin is affected by natural and artificial factors. Natural hydrologic conditions, such as rainfall, seepage from underground reservoirs and other groundwater basins and streams, as well as extraction wells and recharge using imported supplies and water conservation practices influence groundwater levels and quality. Most of the water pumped from groundwater sources is used for municipal and industrial purposes. Reclamation Water importation and reclamation practices are utilized to meet growing regional water demands to support seawater intrusion barrier injection systems, groundwater replenishment, irrigation, and other commercial and industrial needs. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) operates a Groundwater Replenishment System (GWR)to help satisfy water needs. The program provides water for recharging the Orange County Groundwater Basin, additional reclaimed water for injecting into the barrier that protects the groundwater basin from seawater intrusion, and for supplementing non-potable water deliveries during peak summer months. The GWR System enables OCSD and OCWD to address the issue of groundwater recharge on a regional scale. The GWR system supports the following uses: residential, commercial/industrial, agricultural, recreation, and habitat restoration/enhancement. The GWR System treatment facilities are located on existing properties in the City of Fountain Valley owned by OCWD and OCSD. Microfiltration and reverse osmosis are the basic processes that are used to produce the reclaimed water. Summary of Final EIR Analysis for Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project The Final EIR identified one hydrology/water resource impact for the proposed Collection Systems Projects during construction, considered less than significant with mitigation (p. 7.7-3): Construction activities could result in erosion and siltation into nearby surface waters, leading to degradation of water quality or flooding hazards. Construction could also result in chemical spills (e.g., fuels, oils, or grease)to stormwater, and increase turbidity and decrease water quality in waters of the US. The EIR indicates that construction activities involving soil disturbance, such as excavation, stockpiling, and grading could result in increased erosion and sedimentation to flood control channels and surface waters. Erosion and sedimentation to the flood control channels could degrade water quality or decrease the capacity of flood control channels to convey stormwater flows, thereby increasing the risk of flooding. Where construction activities are adjacent to a waterway, hazardous materials released from equipment or other sources could also degrade water quality if accidentally spilled. Potential impacts are mitigated to less than significant by the incorporation of EIR Mitigation Measures 7.7.1a-1g (see IS/Addendum Section 4)that include incorporation of Best Management Practices and development of a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan. N Page 3-18 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental Thresholds and Discussion 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions New Abildyto No Substantial New Ivan, Substantefly Change From ign" at Severe Reduce Previous 7wfiaZy nvironmental Issues hnpact hnpacts Significant hnpact Analysis Water Quality ject ywmrgwkstandardsoruesmdischarge ❑ ❑ ❑ ? rfiaflydepletegromrdwatersWphesorintettm ❑ ❑ ❑ with gmmrdwater mehatge such that there would be a net defck in aquiErvohmle or a lowering ofthe local gmundwatertable level(e.g.,the productimtate ofpre- existing nearbywels would drop Ma levelwhioh would not support existing land uses orphnned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern ofthe site ❑ ❑ ❑ or area,including through the attention ofthe course ofa streammriser,inat rWlichwouldresultinsubsrendal erosion or siltation on-orof-ske? d) Subsmntiaflyakeriheexisthgdamagepatemofthesite ❑ ❑ ❑ or area,including through the alteration ofthe come ofa stream or river,or substanthfly itcrease the rate or amount of surface run ffin a manner,which would result in flooding on- oroff-site? e) Create or contribute mnoffwaterwhich would exceed the ❑ ❑ ❑ mpackyofexstingorphanedstotm mrdmnage systems orpmvide substantial additional sources ofpoaned troffi 0 Otherwise substantiakydegrade waterquafly? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑ napped on a tedeml Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate bhp or other flood hazard delineation map? to Phcewdina100-yearflwdhazndareasbud s, ❑ ❑ ❑ which would uripede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a signiicant risk ofloss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result ofthe farLure ofa levee or dam? )) hundatun byseiche,tsunami,orruuilawO ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The impacts on hydrology and water resources of the Collection Systems Projects, adequately and fully evaluated in the Final EIR, were determined to be less than significant with mitigation. Implementing the 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project will result in similar impacts on hydrology and water resources, and raises no new substantial issues for hydrology and water resources. Hydrology and water resource impacts from the 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project represent no substantial change from the previous analysis. 3.1.10 Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The 1999 Final EIR, Section 7.1 addresses land use and planning, and describes the land use and planning setting for the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B site. In summary, the Gisler-Red Hill N Page 3-19 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental Thresholds and Discussion Reach B site and adjacent area are characterized as urbanized, consisting of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses. This description of adjoining land use is still applicable. The former US MCAS, located east/southeast of Red Hill Avenue, is currently redeveloping with residential, commercial, and institutional uses. Other existing residences front on Red Hill Avenue along a portion of the segment identified for sewer improvements. Multiple schools are located along or near Red Hill Avenue in the location of the project site, and together with residential uses, would be particularly sensitive to project impacts such as noise, dust, traffic, and access disturbance. The playground for Jeans Thorman Elementary School, next to A. G. Currie Middle School, backs up to Red Hill Avenue at Sycamore Avenue. Other schools and school-related uses located on the former MCAS at Valencia Ave. are Heritage Elementary School, Sycamore High School, and Irvine Valley College's Advanced Technology and Education Park. Summary of Final EIR Analysis for Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project The Gisler-Red Hill site is characterized as being within a developed urban area. No established community would be physically divided by implementation of the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project, and no impact would occur. Construction activities for the Collection System Projects as a whole were identified in the EIR as resulting in short-term impacts to adjacent land uses due to noise, dust, traffic, and access disturbance. Land Use Mitigation Measures 7.1.1a- le, listed in IS/Addendum Section 4, were identified in the EIR to reduce short-term land use impacts from construction activities to less than significant with mitigation. The improvements for Gisler-Red Hill Reach B analyzed in the EIR were to be located within the Cities of Irvine, Tustin, and Santa Ana, and would be subject to local plans and policies of these three cities. Planned improvements were consistent with allowable uses. The EIR does not indicate that implementation of the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B improvements will conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the property. The Gisler-Red Hill site is not located within any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area. No impact was identified. 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions Itw AbiWyto 'Its o Substantial New bore Substanta Is From Significant Severe Reduce Previous wontnen sues trnpact Mpacts Significant lrnpact Analysis 10. Land Use/Planning Would the project a) Physically divitean establshedcomrwndy? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict vA6 anyapplicable land use plan,policy,or ❑ ❑ ❑ regulation ofan agency with jurisdiction overthe project (including but not funded to the general plan,specnc plan, local coastalprogTan,or zoning ordinance)adopted Srcihe purpose ofavoiding orun igating an envuonmentel effect? c) Conflict vYA anyapplicable habdat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ natural conmmmmes conseraeticn plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Land use and planning impacts of the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project were adequately and fully evaluated in the 1999 Final EIR. Only short-term construction impacts were identified as a potential impact on adjacent land uses, and mitigation was incorporated to reduce these impacts to less than significant. These same mitigation measures will apply to the 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project. The current N Page 3-20 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B EnWnuunental Thresholds and Discussion proposal W11 not raise any new substantial issues for land use and planning, nor would it result in any new land use and planning impacts or increase the severity of land use and planning impacts identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project on land use and planning represent no substantial change from the previous analysis. 3.1.11 Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The 1999 Final EIR did not address mineral resources for the Collection System Projects, orfor the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project in particular, because of the lack of mineral resources within the OCSD service area that would experience impacts. No impacts for mineral resources were therefore noted or analyzed in the EIR. 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions New Ability to Nb Substantial New .tare Substantially Change From Significant Severe Reduce Previous Environmental Issues impact hornets Significant hornet Analysis 11. Mineral Resources Would the projeck a) Result in the loss ofavadatuRyofalmown umreml ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that could be ofvnWe to the region and the residents ofthe state? b) Resultm the loss ofavadabWofa bcaI54nponant ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery ste delineated m a local general plan,speck plan or other land use plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Implementing the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project under this 2014 proposal will similarly result in no mineral resource impacts and raise no new substantial issues for mineral resources. A similar lack of mineral resource impacts for the 2014 proposed Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project represents no substantial change from the previous Final EIR analysis. 3.1.12 Noise Environmental Setting The 1999 Final EIR, Section 7.4 addresses noise, and describes the noise setting for the OCSD service area and the individual OCSD Collection System Project sites, including the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B site. As the EIR indicates, some land uses are more sensitive to noise levels than others, due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise)and the types of activities typically involved. Residential areas, schools, and hospitals generally are more sensitive to noise than are commercial and industrial land uses. Days and hours during which construction is permitted are designated by individual cities in their local noise ordinances. Properties along the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B segment and in the vicinity of the proposed improvements at Red Hill and Mitchell Avenues and Newport and Mitchell Avenues are contained within an urbanized area of Orange County. Land uses consist of residential, commercial, office-professional, light industrial, and institutional uses. The primary source of noise affecting these locations is vehicle traffic. Single- and multi-family residences front on Red Hill Avenue along a portion of the segment identified for Reach B sewer improvements. N Page 3-21 Gisle Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Envhonmental M sholds and Discussion Red Hill Avenue is a major arterial highway varying from six-to eight-lanes in the area of the proposed Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project improvements. Red Hill Avenue within the City of Tustin is on the list of the City's major and secondary arterials with adjoining residences that are exposed to a Community Noise Equivalent Level over 65 dB (City of Tustin Noise Element, p. 14). Multiple schools are also located along or near Red Hill Avenue in the location of the project site, and together with residential uses, would be particularly sensitive to project noise impacts. The playground and school for Jeans Thorman Elementary School, next to A. G. Currie Middle School, backs up to Red Hill Avenue at Sycamore Avenue. Other schools and school-related uses located on the former MCAS at Valencia Avenue are Heritage Elementary School, Sycamore High School, and Irvine Valley College's Advanced Technology and Education Park. Summary of Final EIR Analysis for Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project The Final EIR identified one noise impact for construction of the Collection System Projects (p. 7.4-7)that was less than significant with mitigation. 1. Construction activities related to the proposed collection system improvements would intermittently and temporarily generate noise levels above existing ambient levels in the project vicinity. EIR Measures 7.4.1a-ld (see IS/Addendum Section 4) mitigate potential impacts from construction noise to less than significant. A summary of the EIR impact analysis for this construction impact follows. Construction-related noise levels along the sewer trunk systems and manhole and pipeline rehabilitation project sites would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. The effect of construction noise would depend upon how much noise would be generated by the equipment, the distance between construction activities and the nearest noise sensitive uses, and existing noise levels at those sensitive uses. Construction for the proposed Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project will occur in developed streets. Proposed construction methods to be utilized are: 1) open trench construction, which involves the removal of pavement and excavation of soil and pipes; and 2) CIPP trenchless repairs used to repair damaged portions of the existing pipeline. Equipment anticipated for the proposed project includes: pavement saw,jack hammer, tractor/loader/backhoe, excavator, dump truck, flat-bed delivery truck, crane, concrete truck, concrete pumper truck, water truck, welding truck, rubber-tired dozer, trench shield, air compressor, side-boom pipe handler tractor, street sweeper, and paving equipment(backhoe, asphalt hauling truck, compactor, paver, roller). Table 2 shows typical noise levels generated by the different types of construction equipment. As shown, the noisiest construction equipment would generate noise at a level of approximately 68 to 96 Lai at 50 feet, assuming no noise mitigation features. The high end of the range for pile drivers was not included since pile driving is not specified in the engineering plans for the Gisler- Red Hill Reach B Project(however the contractor may elect to use pile driving as part of the means and methods to construct the trench shoring). N Page 3-22 GishwRod Hill system Improvements,Reach B Environmental thresholds and Discussion Table 2. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Noise Level at 50 feet Le Backhoes Acommoo typeofexcavator 71-95 Dou 74-93 Trucks 70-96 Puns 69-80 Generamrs 69-82 Compressors 68-95 Pile Drivers 95-101 Source:Final OCSD 1999 Strategic Plan EM,October 1999,p.7.4-9. The length of time that active construction work is immediately in front of a property would likely be between three and five days. Construction activities would occur within one block of a given property for roughly three to four weeks on average. All Gisler-Red Hill construction activities within residential districts would be limited to weekdays during daylight hours, or as specified in encroachment permits with the three cities and other responsible agencies. Because of the proximity of sensitive receptors to proposed construction areas and the anticipated existing daytime noise levels, daytime construction work would significantly affect the noise environment of residences and other sensitive land uses adjacent to construction. While the majority of the proposed construction period would occur when people are at work, those people who work or care for children at home, retired persons, and students and workers at adjacent schools could be significantly affected by noise when construction activities occur in their immediate vicinity. The duration of impact would likely be three to five days, as construction approached, reached, and departed the area of each sensitive receptor. With mitigation, high construction-noise levels become more predictable and easier for residents and other sensitive receptors to avoid. Construction activities for the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project would still increase ambient noise levels for nearby properties; however, mitigation would reduce the increase in noise due to construction and would reduce the chance of exposing people to substantial noise levels. Because of the limited duration of the impact to any one sensitive receptor, the EIR concluded that the residual impact would be less than significant after mitigation. The EIR identified two additional noise impacts for the Collections System Projects: Construction 1. Construction truck traffic would generate noise levels above existing ambient-levels along haul routes used to transport materials to and from the project sites (p. 7.4-10). This impact is considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. Sensitive receptors located adjacent to project construction areas and along haul routes would be subject to truck noise during project construction, with the highest levels of truck traffic on local roadways occurring during the excavation and concrete placement phases of project construction. During other phases of construction, project-related truck traffic would be associated with equipment and supply deliveries, which would require fewer truck trips. The proposed limited of construction activities to daytime hours of least noise sensitivity would help reduce potential noise impacts on residents living along the haul route to a less than significant level. Page 3-23 Gisler-Red Hill Systam Improvements,Reach B Environmental Thresholds and Discussion Operation 2. Operation of the upgraded collection system would not generate noise levels above existing ambient levels in the project vicinity (7.4-11). This impact is considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. The proposed Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project with trunk sewer replacement and manhole rehabilitation would improve water conveyance facilities located underground. Because of the depth of burial, noise generated by flows would not be audible, and would not affect ambient noise levels. 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions FSub=X ew NoSubstantial bbw fibre Gang.From Significant SevereReduce Previous Environmental Issues impact impacts ificant impact Analysis 12. Noise Would the project result m a) Exposure ofpemons w orgenemtion ofmse lews in ❑ ❑ ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or nose ordnance,or applicable standards ofother agencies? b) Exposureofpema toorgenemtionofeuessim ❑ ❑ ❑ gmundbome vintin or gmundbome nose levels? c) Asubstantialpenna ent increase in ambient nose levee ❑ ❑ ❑ m the project vloin4y above levels existing widwut the project? d) Asubstantialtempomtympetiodicincreaseinambient ❑ ❑ ❑ noise levels in the project vicr4 above levels existing vAhout the project? e) Foraprojealocamdvviftmai Nttlandweplanor, ❑ ❑ ❑ vvhere such a plan has not been adopted,within tuo miles ofa public airport or public use airpon,wmId the project expose people residing or vwdang in the pp*ct area to excessive nose levels? 0 Fora project within the vicindyofa private arsaip,vwuld ❑ ❑ ❑ the project expose people residing orvwdang in the project area la excessive nose lewls? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The noise impacts of the Collection Systems Projects, adequately and fully evaluated in the Final EIR, were determined to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. Implementing the 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project will result in similar noise impacts, and raises no new substantial noise issues. Noise impacts from the 2014 Reach B Project represent no substantial change from the previous analysis. 3.1.13 Population and Housing Environmental Setting The 1999 Final EIR did not address population and housing for the Collection System Projects, or for the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project in particular, because of the lack of population and housing impacts that would be experienced. No impacts for population and housing were therefore noted or analyzed in the EIR. N Page 3-24 Gisler-Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B EnWnuannntal nussholds and Discussion 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions Abildyto No Substantial New Mrre Substantially Change From Significant Severe Reduce Previous 711ndwe nvironmental issues fact facts Significant fact Malysis n/Housing project e substantial population growth ia an arca,either ❑ ❑ ❑g.,hyproposmg newhomes and businesses)ore.g,through e#ew=ofroads or otherre)7) space substantial numbers ofexistmg hommg, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction oftephcenent housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers ofpeople necessitating the El ❑ ❑ —) huction oforalacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Implementing the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project under this 2014 proposal will similarly result in no population and housing impacts and raise no new substantial issues for population and housing. A similar lack of population and housing impacts for the 2014 proposed project represents no substantial change from the previous Final EIR analysis. 3.1.14 Public Services Environmental Setting The 1999 Final EIR addresses public services and utilities/service systems in a single combined Section 7.8 entitled Public Services. The current CEQA checklist divides these topics into two separate sections. The public services covered in the Final EIR will be addressed here. The utilities and service systems covered in EIR Section 7.8 will be addressed in IS/Addendum Section 3.1.17. The Final EIR describes the setting for public services for the individual cities in the OCSD service area. The public service providers for the cities in which the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project site is located (Tustin and Irvine), and the City of Santa Ana that abuts the project site are identified as follows: • Fire Protection and Paramedic Services: Orange County Fire Authority for the Cities of Tustin, Irvine and Santa Ana (provider confirmed as of 2014). • Police Protection: Individual City of Irvine, Tustin, and Santa Ana Police Departments for each respective city(providers confirmed as of 2014). Fire and police protection for these cities are also provided on a mutual assistance basis whereby crews from one jurisdictional area would respond to emergencies in adjacent jurisdictions, if necessary. Ambulance service is provided in most areas by privately-operated companies. Schools, parks, and other public facilities (e.g., libraries)were not addressed in the Public Services Section of the Final EIR since no impacts on these services by the Collection Systems Projects were anticipated. N Page 3-25 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental Thresholds and Discussion Summary of Final EIR Analysis for Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project The Final EIR identified two impacts on public services for the proposed Collection Systems Projects (pp. 7.8-1, 7.8-2), both considered less than significant with mitigation: 1. Construction of the collection pipeline system could result in short-term disruption of emergency services in the vicinity of the project area. Potential impacts to fire, police and emergency medical services from construction of the Collection Systems Projects are expressed in increased response times due to restricted vehicular access on roadways. The potential for blocking emergency equipment access would be avoided through advance planning with emergency vehicle providers. The potential for increased vandalism in locations where construction equipment and materials are stored would also be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. EIR Measures 7.8.1a-1c (see IS/Addendum Section 4) mitigate these potential impacts on public services to less than significant. 2. Construction of the collection system projects would create a public safety hazard in the vicinity of the construction areas. Construction of the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project would involve trenching within the public right-of-way. Trench width could range from four to 16 feet. Trench depth is estimated at approximately 20 feet. The active work area along the open trench is expected to extend about 5 to 10 feet on one side of the trench, and 20 to 30 feet to the other side, allowing for access by trucks and loaders. Other construction activities for the Gisler-Red Hill Project include open manholes during manhole rehabilitation. The potential for persons to enter the construction areas during construction could represent a public safety hazard. EIR Measures 7.8.2a-2c together with Measure 7.8.1 c addressing trench openings (see IS/Addendum Section 4) mitigate these potential impacts on public services to less than significant. 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions New Ability to No Substantial New bore Substantially Change From Significant Severe Reduce Previous Environmental Issues hnpact Impacts Significant Impact Analysis 14. Public Services Would the project result in substantial adverse physical urgacts associated with the provision ofneworphysicafiyalered governmental facilities,need for neworphysicafiyaltered governmental facilities,the construction ofwhich could cause significant environmental nursers,in order to maintain accep(eble service ratios,response lines or other perfomunce objectives for any ofthe public services: a) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ El d) Pane? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Otherpublic facilPies? ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Public service impacts of the 1999 Strategic Plan Collection System Projects were adequately and fully evaluated in the Final EIR. Only short-term impacts during construction were identified as potential public service impacts, and mitigation was incorporated to reduce these impacts to less than significant with mitigation. N Page 3-26 Gisler-Red Hill Systam Improvements,Reach B Environmental Thresholds and Discussion Implementing the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project improvements under this 2014 proposal will similarly result in no unmitigated public service impacts and raise no new substantial issues for public services. Public service impacts from the 2014 proposed project represent no substantial change from the previous Final EIR analysis. 3.1.15 Recreation Environmental Setting The 1999 Final EIR did not address recreation for the Collection System Projects, or for the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project in particular, because of the lack of recreation impacts that would be experienced. No impacts for recreation were therefore noted or analyzed in the EIR. 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions bLwPbilityto No Substantial New bbre Substantially Change From Significant Severe Reduce Previous Environmental Issues impact impacts Significant Impact Analysis 7h) rX�s n d the pmjcct inmase the use mexetmg ❑ ❑ ❑ od and m*mlpada mother recreational facilities ubstantel physical deterioration ofthe facd6ywould accelerated? the project include recreational facilities orrequue ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction or expansion oftecreational facilities,which night haw an adverse physicaleffect on the environarcm? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Implementing the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project under this 2014 proposal will similarly result in no recreation impacts and raise no new substantial issues for recreation. A similar lack of recreation impacts for the 2014 proposed project represents no substantial change from the previous Final EIR analysis. 3.1.16 Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting The 1999 Final EIR, Section 7.2 addresses transportation and traffic setting. The limits for the 1999 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project extended from Deere Avenue on the south to Mitchell Avenue on the north. Current project limits begin slightly further south at McGaw Avenue (see Figure 3). Red Hill Avenue, an arterial highway, extends the length of the project area within the Cities of Tustin, Santa Ana and Irvine. Red Hill Avenue, a six-lane roadway in 1999 within the project limits, traverses residential, office-professional, commercial, light industrial, and institutional uses abutting Red Hill Avenue. Red Hill now has: 1)4 southbound lanes between Deere Avenue and 70 feet north of Barranca Parkway; and 2)4 northbound lanes between 500 feet south of Barranca to 500 feet north of Barranca. Larger intersections are controlled with traffic signals. OCTA buses provide service at bus stops along Red Hill Avenue. Summary of Final EIR Analysis for Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Applicable Plans, Ordinances or Policies Establishing Measures of Effectiveness for the Performance of the Circulation System The EIR found that construction activities during trenching in City streets for Strategic Plan Collection System Projects in general would impact traffic circulation during the construction N Page 3-27 Gisle Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B EnWnuunental M sholds and Discussion period. Increased travel times, greater traffic congestion, and safety hazards due to operation and storage of construction equipment and materials would affect motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The 1999 roadway width was deemed sufficient to accommodate trench construction methods with traffic controlled by localized lane closures. Transportation and traffic mitigation measures were also included in the EIR(Mitigation Measures 7.2-la-1 k, listed in IS/Addendum Section 4), to reduce short-term impacts from construction activities on transportation and traffic to less than significant with mitigation. The EIR also indicated that during manhole rehabilitation projects, limited lane closures would be required but that no road closures were anticipated. Construction equipment was expected to consist of one or two utility trucks parked over the manhole in the street. The nature of this construction work would be short-term, occurring over a period of a few days. Construction activities would follow standard operating procedures and OCSD construction specifications. Construction impacts on circulation during manhole rehabilitation (e.g., short-term lane closures) were determined to be less than significant. The EIR addressed truck trips associated with removed pavement, excavated soil, and imported backfill. Construction worker trips were also addressed. The Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project individually was not expected to result in an impact on the level-of-service standards on nearby roadways or highways. No impact was identified. Air Traffic Patterns No increase or change in air traffic would occur as a result of Gisler-Red Hill Reach B improvements. No impact was identified. Hazards due to a Design Feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or Incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) The EIR did not indicate any design feature of the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project that would increase hazards for vehicular circulation or access to the site. No element of the project was identified that would involve design changes to existing roadways or intersections that created hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, and/or pedestrians. No impact would occur. Parking Capacity The Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project would not have an effect on parking capacity because the improvements would not result in a permanent, significant increase in vehicular use of the project site or within the project area. No impact was identified. Potential Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans or Programs supporting Alternative Transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks) The EIR indicated that construction along Red Hill Avenue could impact OCTA bus service. Excavation along Red Hill was anticipated to create temporary short-term inconveniences and nuisances for bus riders, as well as motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Transportation and traffic mitigation measures 7.2-1 a-1 k, listed in IS/Addendum Section 4, were identified in the EIR to reduce short-term impacts from construction activities on transportation and traffic to less than significant with mitigation. These same mitigation would also reduce inconveniences and nuisances for bus riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Measure 7.2-1j: OCTA Coordination specifically deals with disruption of bus service, and requires that OCTA be contacted when construction affects roadways that are part of the OCTA bus network. N Page 3-28 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Environmental Thresholds and Discussion 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions New Ability to No Substantial Sig=New bore Substantially Change From ant Severe Reduce Previous Environmental Issues impact Impacts Significant Impact Aralysis i6. Transportation/Traffic Would the project a) Confictwilh anappficable plan, ordmanceorpolicy ❑ ❑ ❑ establshmg measures ofetkctiwness forihe perfomunce of the circulation system,taking into account afl modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized trawl and relevant components ofthe circulation system,including bun not fmWed n intersections,streets,highways and fieemys,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management ❑ ❑ ❑ E program,including,but not fmrded to level ofservice standards and travel demand measures,or other standards established by the county congestion management agency firzdesignated roads or highways? c) Resin in a change in art traffic patients,including either ❑ ❑ ❑ E an increase in traflic levels ora change in location that results It substantial safetyrislS? d) Subsbrnindy nt ease hazards due to a design tature ❑ ❑ ❑ E (e.g,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or mconyatble was(e.g.,fmmequipment)? e) Resukmmadequanemergencyaccess? ❑ ❑ ❑ E t) Conflict Willi adopted policies,plans orprogmns ❑ ❑ ❑ E regarding public tnm4 bicycle,orpedestdan facilb s,cr otherwise decrease the perfiumanc,or saEtyofsueh fic&60 ? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The transportation/traffic impacts of the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project were evaluated in the 1999 Final EIR. The Final EIR identified two transportation/traffic impacts for the 1999 Strategic Plan collection system improvements as a whole: 1) Less the Significant with Mitigation: Construction activities during trenching in city streets will impact traffic circulation during the construction period. Mitigation measures 7.2.1a—7.2.1 k were provided in the EIR to maintain this impact at a less than significant level. These same mitigation measures will apply to the 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project. 2) Less than Significant: Construction impacts on circulation from construction activities during manhole rehabilitation were identified as less than significant. Implementation of the 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project will result in similar impacts for transportation and traffic, and will raise no new substantial issues. Transportation/traffic impacts from the 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B project represent no substantial change from the previous analysis. N Page 3-29 Gisler-Red Hill Syslem Improvements,Reach B Envinu mental nussholds and Discussion 3.1.17 Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The 1999 Final EIR addresses utilities/service systems and public services in a single combined Section 7.8 entitled Public Services. The current CECA checklist divides these topics into two separate sections. The utility and service systems covered in the Final EIR will be addressed here. The public services covered in EIR Section 7.8 are addressed in IS/Addendum Section 3.1.14. The Final EIR describes the setting for utility and service systems for the OCSD service area. The Collection Systems Projects are described as being constructed adjacent to and perpendicular to existing underground and aboveground utilities. These utilities include water service, storm drains, and aboveground and underground gas and electric power lines. Utility providers for the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project site are as follows: • Water Service: Irvine Ranch Water District in the City of Irvine; City of Tustin and Metropolitan Water District(MWD)for the City of Tustin; and City of Santa Ana and MWD for the City of Santa Ana. • Storm Drains: Owned and maintained by the three individual cities (Irvine, Tustin, and Santa Ana) in which the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project site is located. These municipal storm drains eventually drain into County flood control channels owned and maintained by OCFCD. • Electrical and gas transmission lines: owned and operated by Southern California Edison and the Southern California Gas Company, respectively. Summary of Final EIR Analysis for Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project The Final EIR identified one impact on utilities and service systems for the proposed Collection Systems Projects (pp. 7.8-4), considered less than significant with mitigation: 1. Construction of the collection pipeline system could result in short-term disruption of utility service and may require utilities relocation. EIR Measures 7.8.3a-3d (see IS/Addendum Section 4) mitigate this potential impact on utilities and service systems to less than significant. No operational impacts were identified. 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions New Abdityto No Substantial New bore Substantially Change From Significant Severe Reduce Previous Environtrentallssues Impact Impacts Significantlmpact Analysis 17. Utilities/Service Systems 06 Rbuld the project a) Fmeedaastewoterheatm:ntrequfiementsofthe ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable Regional water Quality ControlBmid? b) Require orresultm the conctructionofnewwateror ❑ ❑ ❑ wastewetertreatment facilities or expansion ofemfing faoffies,the construction ofwhich could cause sindicant envuomromal efkim? N Page 3-30 Gisler-Red Hill Systam Improvements,Reach B Environmental nussholds and Discussion New Abditym No Substantial I+w fibre Substantially Change From ant Severe Reduce Previous Environmentallssues hrmac[ Mpacis Significant Impact Analysis c) Requite orresult m the conswc[ion ofnewstortn Hater ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ drainage mctees or expansion ofexs[mg mc�lites,the canshnction ofwhich could cause significant enviromnenml effects? d) Have sudden[wady suppler avatabe to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ project fiom existing entitements and resources,or are newot expanded entitlements needed? e) Resukmadetem-inationbythexasteaaterheafirm[ ❑ ❑ ❑ provider,which serves of rmyseive the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing corna*wnts? 0 Be served by a landfll with sufficient pemriked capacity 0 ❑ El ❑ accomm�date the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Conhplyd Edeml,smw,and local smmres and ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 regulations related m solid waste? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Utilities and service systems impacts of the 1999 Strategic Plan Collection System Projects were adequately and fully evaluated in the Final EIR. Only one short-term impact during construction was identified as a potential utilities and service systems impact, and mitigation was incorporated to reduce this impact to less than significant with mitigation. Implementing the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project improvements under this 2014 proposal will similarly result in no unmitigated utilities and service systems impacts and raise no new substantial issues for utilities and service systems. Utilities and service systems impacts from the 2014 proposed Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project represent no substantial change from the previous Final EIR analysis. 3.1.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance Summary of Final EIR Analysis for Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project a) 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? All impacts associated with the Collection Systems Projects as a whole were fully identified and reduced to less than significant with mitigation, where appropriate, in the Final EIR. The Collection Systems Projects would not 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 CaI'Ifomia history or prehistory. Therefore, all impacts for this CEQA threshold associated with the Collection Systems Projects as a whole, and for the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project individually, would be either less than significant, or less than significant with mitigation. N Page 3-31 Gisler-Red Hill system Improvements,Reach B Environmental Thresholds and Discussion b) 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 other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) All impacts associated with the Collection Systems Projects have been fully identified in the Final EIR. No impacts have been identified that would be cumulatively considerable after mitigation. Measure 7.11-1a addressing construction coordination with Orange County, and various city public works and planning departments, and other local agencies; and Measure 7.11-1 b addressing recycling will reduce potential cumulative impacts from the Collection Systems Projects for these two areas. (See IS/Addendum Section 4 for a complete listing of Mitigation Measures.) Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects,which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No environmental effects or unmitigated impacts from the Collection Systems Projects as a whole or the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project individually would occur that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project Discussion and Conclusions NswAbilityto So Substautial Now Nbre Substantially Change From "guificam Severe Reduce Previous Environmental Issues >ac[ hwacts sigoidcan[hnpact Analysis 76. !M..daltwry Findings of Significance esthelampahaw th potentalto degrade the qual'tyof ❑ ❑ ❑ E ohsnem substmrtiatyrerh ce dw habitatofa fish orw7ld� species,cause a fsh or population to drop bebwsel€ sustanmg levels,beaten 0 eliminate a plant oranurel co memdy,reduce the nuriberorreshctt a range ofa rare or endangered plvaoraturaL oretindate inporarht examples ofthe rrejorpedods ofCaWma hsroryorprehstm}R b) Does the project haw ixipacls thatme iahvrlallylinded,but ❑ ❑ ❑ E amulativ*oonsiderable? ('Clhnutatnelycaatlemble"means dmt the merenenalefets ofa frojeaa[e considerable when viewed n connecti n vAh the effects ofpastpr*as,the e&eb of atheramentiau em,andthe efEcts ofprobable thhse projects.) c) IbesLis i;ahave emionmenalefEcts,which vd cause ❑ ❑ ❑ E substantial adverse of cis on hurranbeings,edherduealyor adireayl No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The impacts of development of the Collection Systems Projects were evaluated in the Final EIR. A single Final EIR biological resource impact for the Collection Systems Projects was identified and determined to be less than significant with mitigation. A supplemental biological resource study for the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project was conducted as part of this IS/Addendum to satisfy the additional CEQA review requirement imposed by Final EIR Mitigation Measure 7.3-1. An evaluation in the supplemental study of potential biological resource impacts on the unpaved area now to be affected indicate that implementing the Gisler-Red Hill Reach B improvements under the 2014 proposal will result in no new impacts on biological resources and that Final EIR biological resource mitigation is sufficient to maintain impacts at a less than significant level. N Page 3-32 Gisle Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Envhonmental M sholds and Discussion The proposed 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project will have no cumulatively considerable or substantially adverse impacts in any category. The proposed 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project does not raise any new substantial issues, nor would it result in any new impacts or increase the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR. Impacts from the 2014 Gisler-Red Hill Reach B Project result in no substantial change from the previous analysis detailed in the Final EIR. Page 3-33 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Mitigation Measures 4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES A listing of mitigation measures from the Final EIR that apply to the Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B is presented below. BIOLOGY Measure 6.3-1: Nesting Birds. Prior to the removal of healthy trees on site, a biologist knowledgeable of birds will survey the trees to determine if active nests are present. If nests of sensitive species are present, tree removal will be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. Measure 7.3-1: Additional CEQA Review. If in the future, as OCSD develops the design of each specific collection system project for implementation, a project alignment includes unpaved, undeveloped park or open space area, OCSD will conduct additional CEQA review as needed to clarify and address potential impacts to biological resources. LAND USE Measure 7.1-1a: Construction Hours.The District will comply with local ordinances and restrict construction activities to daylight hours or as specified in encroachment permits. Measure 7.1-1 b: Construction Notification. The District shall post notices or provide notification of construction activities to adjacent property owners (including homeowners and adjacent businesses) at least 72 hours in advance of construction and provide a contact and phone number of a District staff person to be contacted regarding questions or concerns about construction activity. Measure 7.1-1c: Emergency Services Access. The District shall coordinate with officials of adjacent fire station, the Fountain Valley Regional Hospital as well as other hospital to ensure that 24-hour emergency access is available. Measure 7.1-1d: Covered Trenches. To minimize disruption of access to driveways to adjacent land uses, the District or its contractor(s) shall maintain steel-trench plates at the construction sites to restore access across open trenches. Construction trenches in streets will not be left open after work hours. Measure 7.1-1e: Signage. The District shall provide temporary signage indicating that businesses are open. TRAFFIC Measure 7.2-1a: Traffic Control Plans.Traffic control plans will be prepared by a qualified professional engineer, prior to the construction phase of each sewer line project as implementation proceeds. Measure 7.2-1 b: Alternative Routes. Traffic control plans will consider the ability of alternative routes to carry additional traffic and identify the least disruptive hours of construction site truck access routes, 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 and sidewalks, bikeways and equestrian trails, to the greatest extent feasible. Measure 7.2-1c: Encroachment Permits. Encroachment permits for all work within public rights-of-way will be obtained from each involved agency prior to commencement of any construction. Agencies involved include Caltrans, the Orange County Planning and N Page 4-1 Gisler-Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Mitigation Measures Development Services (PDS) (Development Services Section)and the various cities where work will occur. The District will comply with traffic control requirements, as identified by Caltrans and the affected local jurisdictions. Measure 7.2-1d: Traffic Control Plans. Traffic control plans will comply with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook and/or the Manual of Traffic Controls as determined by each affected local agency, to minimize any traffic and pedestrian hazards that exist during project construction. Measure 7.2-1e: Traffic Disruption Avoidance. 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, shall 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. Measure 7.2-1f: Street Closure. Public streets will generally be kept operational during construction, particularly in the morning and evening peak hours of traffic. Lane closures will be minimized during peak traffic hours. Measure 7.2-1g: Roadway Restoration. Public roadways will be restored to a condition mutually agreed to between the District and local jurisdictions prior to construction. Measure 7.2-1 h: Sewer Construction Coordination. The Districts 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. Measure 7.2-1 is Emergency Services. Emergency service purveyors will be contacted and consulted to preclude the creation of unnecessary traffic bottlenecks that will seriously impede response times. Additionally, measures to provide an adequate level of access to private properties shall be maintained to allow delivery of emergency services. Measure 7.2-1j: OCTA Coordination. OCTA will be contacted when construction affects roadways that are part of the OCTA bus network. Measure 7.2-1 k: Railroad Encroachment Procedures. This measure is applicable to the following collection systems improvements: Lower Santa Ana River Interceptor Improvements, Newhope-Placentia Trunk Replacement, and Gisler-Redhill System Improvements—B. To reduce impacts to railroad rights-of-way, the District is required to follow the Right-of-Way Encroachment Approval Procedures— 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 District must comply with the rules and regulations of this agreement at all times when working on SCRRA property, including those outlined 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'. N Page 4-2 Gisler-Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Mitigation Measures Measure 7.2-11: Trails and Bikeways. Short term construction impacts and closures to locally designated trails and bikeways, as found in the County's Master Plan of Regional Riding and Hiking Trails (RRHT) and Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP), shall be mitigated with detours, signage, flagmen and reconstruction as appropriate. Long term impacts such as permanent trail link closures should be mitigated with provisions for new rights-of-way for trails and/or bikeways and reconstruction. Measure 7.2-1m: County of Orange Coordination. Any construction plans that could potentially impact regional riding and hiking trails or Class I bikeways shall be submitted to the County's Division of Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Trails Planning and Implementation for review and approval prior to project construction activities. Measure 7.2-1n: Trails Restoration. Regional Riding and Hiking Trails and Class I Bikeways impacted by construction activities shall be restored to their original condition after project construction. NOISE Measure 7.4-1a: Hours of Construction. Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. and as necessary to comply with local ordinances. Any nighttime or weekend construction activities would be subject to local permitting. Measure 7.4-1b: Noise Control. All equipment used during construction shall be muffled and maintained in good operating condition. All internal combustion engine driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. Measure 7.4-1c: Pile-Driving Noise Reduction. Contractors shall use vibratory pile drivers instead of conventional pile drivers where feasible and effective in reducing impact noise from shoring of jack-pit locations in close proximity to residential areas, where applicable. Measure 7.4-1d: Construction Notification. Sensitive receptors affected by pipeline replacement projects, and manhole rehabilitation activities shall be notified concerning the project timing and construction schedule, and shall be provided with a phone number to call with questions or complaints. AIR QUALITY Measure 7.5-1a: Dust Control. The District shall require the contractors to implement a dust abatement program that would reduce fugitive dust generation to lessen impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The dust abatement program could include the following measures: • Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. • Cover all trucks having soil, sand, or other loose material or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water as necessary, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily(with water sweepers)all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily(with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried into adjacent streets. • Water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed soil stockpiles. • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. N Page 4-3 Gisler-Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Mitigation Measures Measure 7.5-1b: Exhaust Emissions. Contractors shall maintain equipment engines in proper working order and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. Such equipment shall not be operated during first or second stage smog alerts. Measure 7.5-1c: Truck Emissions Reductions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading or unloading queues shall be kept with their engines off, when not in use, to reduce vehicle emissions. Construction activities shall be discontinued during second-stage smog alerts. GEOLOGY Measure 7.6-1a: Seismic Safety. The District will design and construct new facilities in accordance with District seismic standards and/or meet or exceed seismic, design standards in the most recent edition of the California Building Code. Measure 7.6-1 b: Soils Survey. Soils surveys shall be conducted to determine the liquefaction potential along the collection system improvements route. HYDROLOGY Measure 7.7-1a: Contractor BMPs. Construction contractors will implement Best Management Practices to prevent erosion and sedimentation to avoid significant adverse impacts to surface water quality. Measure 7.7-1b: Storm Season Restrictions. In addition, open-trench installation of pipelines across open drainage channels and the interplant connector shall be limited to the dry season. Measure 7.7-1e: County of Orange Coordination.The District shall coordinate with the Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Department(Orange County Flood Control District) Planning Section to ensure compatibility and joint use feasibility with existing and future projects. Measure 7.7-1d: Waterway Protection. The District shall incorporate into contract specifications the requirement that the contractor(s) enforce strict on-site handling rules to keep construction and maintenance materials out of receiving waters. The rules will include measures to: • Store all reserve fuel supplies only within the confines of a designated construction staging area. • Refuel equipment only within designated construction staging area. • Regularly inspect all construction vehicles for leaks. Measure 7.7-1e: Spill Prevention. The District shall incorporate into contract specifications the requirement that the contractor(s) prepare a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan. The plan would include measures to be taken in the event of an accidental spill. Measure 7.7-1f: Spill Containment. The District shall incorporate into contract specifications the requirement that the construction staging areas be designed to contain contaminants such as oil, grease, and fuel products so that they do not drain towards receiving waters or storm drain inlets. If heavy duty construction equipment is stored overnight adjacent to a potential receiving water, drip pans will be placed beneath the machinery engine block and hydraulic systems. N Page 4-4 Gisler-Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Mitigation Measures Measure 7.7-1g: Flood Control Facilities. The District will contact the Orange County Flood Control District prior to excavation activities involved with the construction of the interplant connector to ensure the integrity of the flood control system along the Santa Ana River. PUBLIC SERVICES Measure 7.8-1 a: Traffic Control Plan Notifications. The contractor shall provide a copy of the Traffic Control Plan to the Sheriffs Department local police departments and fire departments prior to construction. The District shall provide 72-hour notice of construction to the local service providers of individual pipeline segments. Measure 7.8-1b: Emergency Facility Access. Access to fire stations and emergency medical facilities must be maintained on a 24-hour basis and at least one access to medical facilities shall be available at any one time during construction. The District shall notify appropriate officials at the impacted medical facility regarding construction schedule. Measure 7.8-1c: Trench Openings.Trenches shall be promptly backfilled after pipeline installation. If installation is incomplete, steel trench plates shall be used to cover open trenches. Measure 7.8-2a: Pedestrian Safety. Construction contractors shall ensure that adequate barriers would be established to prevent pedestrians from entering open trenches of an active construction area. Warnings shall also be posted sufficient distances from the work area to allow pedestrians to cross the street at controlled intersections rather than having to jaywalk. Measure 7.8-2b: Equipment Security. Construction contractors shall be responsible for providing appropriate security measures, including the provision of security guards, for all equipment staging and/or storage areas needed for the project. Measure 7.8-2c: Construction Refuse. Construction contractors shall dispose of construction refuse at approved disposal locations. Contractors shall not be permitted to dispose of construction debris in residential or business containers. Measure 7.83a: Utility Search. A detailed study identifying utilities along the pipeline routes shall be conducted during the design stages of the project. For segments with adverse impacts the following mitigations shall be implemented. • Utility excavation or encroachment permits shall be required from the appropriate agencies. These permits include measures to minimize utility disruption. The District and its contractors shall comply with permit conditions and such conditions shall be included in construction contract specifications. • Utility locations shall be verified through field survey. • Detailed specifications shall 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 would be notified of the District's construction plans and schedule. Arrangements shall be made with these entities regarding protection, relocation, or temporary disconnection of services. Measure 7.83b: Utility Conflicts. In order to reduce potential impacts associated with utility conflicts, the following measures should be implemented in conjunction with 7.8-3a. • Disconnected cables and lines would be promptly reconnected. • The District shall observe Department of Health Services (DHS)standards which require a 10-foot horizontal separation between parallel sewer and water mains; (2)one foot vertical separation between perpendicular water and sewer line crossings. In the event N Page 4-5 Gisler-Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Mitigation Measures that the separation requirements cannot be maintained, the District shall obtain DHS variance through provisions of water encasement, or other means deemed suitable by DHS; and (3)encasing water mains in protective sleeves where a new sewer force main crosses under or over an existing sewer main. Measure 7.8-3c: Protect Utilities. The construction contractor shall comply with District requirements and specification to protect existing utility lines. Measure 7.8-3d: Agency Coordination. The District should coordinate with the Orange County Public Facilities Resources Department, Orange County Flood Control District, Planning Section, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Municipal Water District of Orange County, Coastal Municipal Water District, and Orange County Water District, and affected jurisdictions to ensure compatibility and joint use feasibility with existing future projects. Measure 7.8-3e: Identify Abandoned Oil Wells. Prior to construction, the District shall identify existing and abandoned oil production wells within the project area using the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), District 1 well location maps. Access to identified non-abandoned oil wells will be maintained. Previously abandoned wells identified beneath proposed structures or utility corridors may need to be plugged to current DOGGR specifications including adequate gas venting systems. Measure 7.83f: Abandon Wells. Should construction activities uncover previously unidentified oil production wells, the DOGGR will be notified, and the well will be abandoned following DOGGR specifications for well abandonment. AESTHETICS Measure 7.9-1a: Construction Site Restoration. The District shall ensure that its contractors restore disturbed areas along the pipe line alignment to a condition mutually agreed to between the District and local jurisdictions prior to construction such that short-term construction disturbance does not result in long-term visual impacts. Measure 7.9-1 b: Construction Housekeeping. Construction contractors shall be required to keep construction and staging areas orderly, free of trash and debris. CULTURAL RESOURCES Measure 7.10.1: Archaeological Surveys. During project design, within the area of the 6 recorded archaeological sites within proposed project alignments, a qualified archaeologist shall conduct a subsurface testing program to determine whether intact significant deposits exist in the excavation area. Shall testing indicate that areas of significant deposits do exist, the deposits would be preserved in place, if feasible. If preservation in place is not feasible, a Data Recovery Plan would be prepared to address the removal of those deposits and would be implemented before the beginning of construction. The Plan would define how and when mechanical and manual excavation would be conducted, the anticipated volume of recovered soils, artifact analysis, cataloging and curation, and monitoring and reporting requirements. For the three sites where human remains have been recorded (CAORA-85, CA-ORA-87, and CA- ORO-300), the District would enter into a written agreement between an archaeological consultant, to be retained by the District, and a Native American representative prior to construction in the vicinity of these sites. This agreement would specify terms as to the treatment and disposition of the human remains, and shall define "associated burial goods"with reference to Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. N Page 4-6 Gisler-Rod Hill System Improvements,Reach B Mitigation Measures Measure 7.10.2a: Archaeological Resources. Subsurface construction has a low to very high potential for exposing significant subsurface cultural resources. Due to the likelihood of encountering cultural resources, the District shall implement the following prior to project construction: • Language shall be included in the General Specifications section of any subsurface construction contracts alerting the contractor to the potential for subsurface cultural resources and trespassing on known or potential resources adjacent to the project. • Prior to construction, contractors and District staff will receive an archaeological orientation from a professional archaeologist regarding the types of resources which may be uncovered and how to identify these resources during construction activities. The orientation shall also cover procedures to follow in the case of any archaeological discovery. Measure 7.10.2b: Cultural Resources. If cultural resources are encountered at any time during project excavation, construction personnel would avoid altering these materials and their context until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation. Project personnel would not collect or retain cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include, but are not limited to, chart or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and 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. Measure 7.10.2c: Human Remains Alert. In the event of accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the County Coroner would be notified immediately and construction activities shall be halted. If the remains are found to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission would be notified within 24 hours. Guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. CUMULATIVE Measure 7.11-1 a: Coordinate Construction. The District will continue to Coordinate construction activities with the county and city public works and planning departments and other local agencies to identify overlapping pipeline routes, project areas, and construction schedules. To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be coordinated to consolidate the occurrence of short-term construction-related impacts. Measure 7.11.1b: Recycling. To reduce cumulative impacts related to solid waste, the District shall make all practicable efforts to recycle where feasible. N Page 4-7 Gisle Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B References 5.0 REFERENCES Hard-copy materials from the following list of references are available for review at OCSD offices, 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California 92708. To make arrangements to review any of the materials listed below during regular business hours, please contact Hardat Khublall at 714-962-2411. OCSD. 1999. Strategic Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Orange County, California. October. Tustin, City of. 2012. City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element. November 20. Page 5-1 Gisler-Red HIII System Improvements,Reach B Llst olPreWrers 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Tetra Tech—Consultant 17885 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614-6213 Phone: 949-809-5000 Fax: 949-809-5004 Project Manager..............................................................................................Tom Epperson. P.E. Project Engineer ......................................................................................Laurence Esguerra, P.E. Design Engineer................................................................................................ Molly Jewett, P.E. Environmental Task Lead ............................................................................ Emilie Johnson, AICP Word Processor/Document Control..................................................................... DeeAnna Garcia CAD/Graphics............................................................................................................Rick Ikemoto OPage 6-1 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Figures FIGURES 0 P:\8452-Gisler Red HiKCADTIGURE I -VICINITY MAMP.dwg Oct 01,2014-5:44pm n&.ikemoto LOS ANGELES COUNTY LA HABRAImp- d � 4 sF9 B EA �33 OLM NITS �.. F RTON VORBA PLACENTIA LINDA 92 90 BU A 91 /OF PA K 5 CIO PALMA 4 O5 So CY RE ANAH IM 57 VILLA Q L ' — PARK 8 LAMITOS - �, STA TO a RAN E g 55 Y DEN 9 ZZ GROVE ZZ STMI ST L CH swuF SST US § NTA R ANA r 5 F VAL A AL ,p TON _ � P B H d y 55 73 PACIFIC COSTA OCEAN MESA IRVINE NEW G PROJECT BEACH VICINITY VICINITY MAP OCSD GISLER-RED HILL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS REACH B EIR ADDENDUM FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE 1 I ,- IN TETRA TECH.INC. P:\6452-Gisler Red HiKCAD\FIGURE 2-LOCATION MAPAwg Oct 01,2014-5:59pm nck.ikemoto PROJECT SANTA ANA LOCATION 'P�F CHESTNUT AV MAIN Yq o J f m MCFADDEN AV C` ¢ `r0 Y ELT '9L O DINGER N it o e R eRi o Lq�� qq 9S�TUSTIN R °P S US DOT CPUC OCROSSNG'90 WARNER AV eF( q / °R NO.026746V R DYER P° ALTON AV P� PROJECT LOCATION PTO` oq fF' yOC qL MARINE CORPS HELICOPTER q� RVNE ` AIR STATION COSTA MESA ` PROJECT LOCATION MAP OCSD LEGEND GISLER-RED HILL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS REACH B CITY BOUNOARV LINE EIR ADDENDUM FIGURE 2 PROJECT LOCATION MAP PROJECT SITE a TETRA TECH,INC. F.1eaY. uw�b P:18452-Gisler Red HilINCAMFIGURE 3-SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS wanner to edinger.dwg Oct 06,2014-10:28am nck.ikemoto PROPOSED SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AT MITCHELL INTERSECTIONS OCSD GISLER-RED HILL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS REACH B y' ecee '9@ yyeo % d' EIRADDENDUM -P °c@ G TUSTIN-ORANGE TRUNK 9L DYER ROAD @'�@ TRUNK o ° qd Costa Mesa Freeway(55) Newport A nu rn 5 TUSTIN °OR RED HILL RELIEF SEWER WEST WEST RELIEF d IT & e o°P ED'.S.R..' INTERCEPTOR 3. 40 " `R NO�T.gV (INTERCEPTOR) TRUNK TRUNK 3 0 e DO NORTH o > TRUNK = " 3 G GO PROJECT D 3 s` q o LOCATION IS F �. @roq�Qy 'm Red Hill _ _ _ _ _ Avenue > LEGEND -REDHILL INTERCEPTOR J C 0�1 ER OL 0 @ GISLER RED HILL TRUNK LIMITS FOR NEW TRUNK Si 9m 3 McGAW ' PUMP GISLER-RED HILL TRUNK a LEMON STATION FORMER F HEIGHTS TUSTIN BROWNING SUBTRUNK IS US MARINE CORPS TRUNK a AIR STATION / LIMITS FOR CIPP REHABILITATION, MANHOLE LINING REPAIRS AND MANHOLE REHABILITATION y APPRO%IMPTE SCTLE IN FEET 0 1,600 3.200 FIGURE 3 GISLER - RED HILL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, REACH B OTETRA TECH.INC. P:\8452-Gisler Red I-INKCAMFIGURE 4-SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS alignment.dwg Oa101,2014-6:40pm na.ikemoto OCSw > i w RED HI GISLER-RED HILL SYSTEM z < IMPROVEMENTS REACH B 3 m EIR ADDENDUM 'y -- � , rosnry � AL PROPOSED ALIGNMENT PROJECT LOCATION . �... -.. �'\ ,d —I • �"} a '�IRVINEAIRs,nmN w w z a a a a zz 5 e < W � � z Ei > z w ¢ N n y > - a Z - _ D I n J� ��I r 0, mstIEWPOSEDALIGNMENT IN FEU m a O o rzm iao T IT I - r . m ` FIGURE 4 GISLER - RED HILL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, REACH B - WARNER AVE. TO EDINGER AVE. OTETRA TECH.INC. PM52-Gisler Red HIMCADWROM EMILIEWitchell IdemcUonslMllohellI medbns\7-37-ohaln0l-MXchell.d,, Od05,2014-1:32pm Uck.lkemolo NEWPORTAVENUE ® kOPOSE.IMPROVEMENTS AT NEWPORT-MITCHELL INTERSECTIONS lit 00.4 lop 4 10L2 x RED HILL AVENUE 101.1 1 1 101 2 100.5 x 100.5 10 3 9 x O Ts PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AT REDHILL- MITCHELL INTERSECTIONS GISLER-RED HILL SYSTEMIMPROVEMENTS REACH B EIR ADDENDUM FIGURE 5 PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTSAT REDHILL-MITCHELL AND NEWPORT- MITCHELL INTERSECTIONS ® TETRA TECH.INC. Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B AppentlirA APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT GISLER-RED HILL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, REACH B AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS TECHNICAL REPORT Prepared for: Am Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Ave, Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Prepared by: N Tetra Tech, Inc. 17885 Von Kannan Avenue, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614-6213 October 2014 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................1 1.1 Findings....................................................................................................................1 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT........................................................................................1 2.1 Purpose.....................................................................................................................1 2.2 Site Location............................................................................................................1 2.3 Project Description...................................................................................................3 2.4 Existing Air Quality.................................................................................................3 2.5 Air Pollutant Constituents and Attainment Status...................................................6 2.5.1 Ozone...........................................................................................................6 2.5.2 Nitrogen Dioxides........................................................................................7 2.5.3 Carbon Monoxide........................................................................................7 2.5.4 Sulfur Dioxide..............................................................................................7 2.5.5 Fine Particulates (PM,,,PM2.5)....................................................................8 2.5.6 Lead..............................................................................................................8 2.5.7 Toxic Air Contaminants...............................................................................8 2.6 Existing Regional Air Quality Emissions................................................................9 2.6.1 South Coast Air Basin..................................................................................9 2.7 Toxic Air Contaminants.........................................................................................10 2.8 Sensitive Receptors................................................................................................11 3. AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT.....................................................................................12 3.1 Thresholds of Significance....................................................................................12 3.1.1 Criteria Pollutants......................................................................................12 3.1.2 Toxic Air Contaminants.............................................................................13 3.1.3 Greenhouse Gases......................................................................................13 3.2 Methodology..........................................................................................................16 3.2.1 Construction—Regional and Local............................................................16 3.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................18 3.3 Air Quality Impact Analysis..................................................................................19 3.3.1 Regional Construction Impacts..................................................................20 3.3.2 Localized Construction Impacts ................................................................23 3.3.3 Construction Related Odors.......................................................................24 3.3.4 Construction Related GHGs ......................................................................24 3.3.5 Operational Related Odors.........................................................................24 3.3.6 Consistency with Regional Air Quality Plan.............................................25 3.4 Cumulative Impacts...............................................................................................26 3.4.1 Construction...............................................................................................26 3.4.2 Global Climate Change..............................................................................27 3.5 Mitigation Measures ..............................................................................................27 Orange county sanitation Dlstrlat October 2014 Tetra Tech 111 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report 4. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................28 APPENDIXA...............................................................................................................................29 CALEEMOD OUTPUT FILES..................................................................................................29 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. State and Federal Air Quality Standards..................................................................4 Table 2. Pollutants Attainment Status in the South Coast Air Basin...................................10 Table 3. Significant Emission Thresholds...........................................................................12 Table 4. Regional Project Construction Emissions e............................................................23 Table 5. Localized Project Constmctum Emissions a..........................................................23 Table 6. Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions..............................................................24 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Location Map...............................................................................................2 Figure 2. Construction Schedule...........................................................................................21 Figure 3. Construction Equipment........................................................................................22 APPENDICES A. CALEEDMOD OUTPUT FILES Orange county sanitation District October 2014 Term Tech 1V Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report ABBREVIATION CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CARB California Air Resources Board CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CO Carbon monoxide CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent EPA Environmental Protection Agency H2S Hydrogen sulfide HI Hazardous Index BRA Health Risk Assessment LST Localized Significance Threshold NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NO2 Nitrogen dioxide O&M Operations and maintenance 03 Ozone OEHHA Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment OPR Office of Planning and Research Pb Lead PM10 fine particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns PM,., fine particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns ROG Reactive organic gases RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District S02 Sulfur dioxide TSP Total suspended particulate Orange county sanitation District October 2014 Term Tech v Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 FINDINGS The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD or District) proposes to repair and upgrade the Gisler-Red Hill Trunk Sewer System, located within the right-of-way of Red Hill Avenue in the cities of Irvine, Santa Ana and Tustin in Orange County, California. This Air Quality-Greenhouse Gas Technical Report provides an analysis of potential air quality and global climate change impacts related to the proposed project (Project). This report was prepared to provide technical analysis to support an Addendum to the Final 1999 OCSD Strategic Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as allowed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). All analyses for this technical report have been conducted using methods recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The findings of the analyses are as follows: • Project construction would not cause an exceedance of daily regional or local emission thresholds, and would not expose off-site receptors to significant levels of toxic air contaminants. • There are no emissions during operations, and thus no air quality impacts would be experienced during project operation. • Project construction would result in a minimal increase in Statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; this would not contribute significantly to global climate change. • The Project would be consistent with air quality policies set forth by the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). • The Project would not result in cumulatively significant impacts during construction or operation. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 2.1 PURPOSE This report was prepared to assess potential air quality and global climate change impacts that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B. Emissions associated with both construction and operations were analyzed as required under CEQA. 2.2 SITE LOCATION The project encompasses property within the cities of Santa Ana, Irvine, and Tustin in Orange County, California primarily within the right-of-way of Red Hill Avenue. The Project site location is illustrated in Figure 1. Orange County Sanitation District October 2014 Tet2 Tech I P:NS452-Gisler Red HiKCADTIGURE 2-LOCATION MAPAwg Oct 01,2014-6:01pm nck.ikemoto PROJECT SANTA ANA LOCATION 'P�F CHESTNUT AV MAIN Yq o J f m MCFADDEN AV C` ¢ `r0 Y ELT '9L O DINGER N it o e R eRi o Lq�� qq 9S�TUSTIN R °P S US DOT CPUC OCROSSNG'90 WARNER AV eF( q / °R NO.026746V R DYER P° ALTON AV P� PROJECT LOCATION PTO` oq fF' yOC qL MARINE CORPS HELICOPTER q� RVNE ` AIR STATION COSTA MESA ` PROJECT LOCATION MAP OCSD LEGEND GISLER-RED HILL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS REACH B -CITY BOUNDARY UNE FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP TETRA TECH,INC. IN Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION OCSD is responsible for safely collecting, treating and disposing of the wastewater generated by 2.5 million people living in a 479 square-mile area of central and northwest Orange County. OCSD's 1999 Strategic Plan identified that the Gisler-Red Hill Sewer System, Reach B needed improvements based on capacity deficiencies as well as age. The Gisler-Red Hill Sewer System Reach B consists of two parallel sewers: the Trunk and Interceptor. The Gisler-Red Hill Trunk Sewer was constructed in 1962 and consists of approximately 16,000 feet of 21-inch to 27-inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) from Mitchell Avenue to McGaw Avenue. The Interceptor was constructed as part of two contracts. The Red Hill Relief Sewer was constructed in 1969 and consists of approximately 8,000 feet of 36-inch VCP from Mitchell Avenue to Bell Avenue. The Red Hill Interceptor was constructed in 1972 and consists of approximately 8,000 feet of 27-inch to 42-inch VCP extending the pipe from Bell Avenue to McGaw Avenue. The Trunk and Interceptor have been in service for over 30 years. The Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B will include: 1) upsizing approximately 4,900 linear feet of Trunk sewer between Edinger and Warner Avenues two pipe- diameters larger to increase capacity; 2) abandoning the replaced portion of the Trunk sewer between Edinger and Warner Avenues; 3) repairing portions of the Trunk and Interceptor sewers with a cured-in-place plastic pipe; and 4) rehabilitating or replacing existing Trunk and Interceptor manholes between Mitchell and McGaw Avenues. The construction described above will take place within the street right-of-way of Red Hill Avenue. The proposed method of construction for the new Trunk sewer is open trench construction to a depth of approximately 20 feet. The cured-in-place rehabilitation is a trenchless repair that does not require excavation. Also included in the Project are improvements to diversion structures at the following two intersections: Red Hill and Mitchell Avenues, and Newport and Mitchell Avenues. New pipe and manholes are proposed at these intersections to correct reverse grades in the pipeline and diversion structures. The proposed method of construction is open trench construction to a depth of approximately 20 feet. Bypass pumping is anticipated for the construction of the rehabilitation work and open cut construction at the intersections of Red Hill and Edinger Avenues, Red Hill and Mitchell Avenues, and Newport and Mitchell Avenues. 2.4 EXISTING AIR QUALITY Air pollutant emissions within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) are generated from stationary, mobile, and natural sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources occur at an identified location and are usually associated Orange county sanitation District October 2014 Term Tech 3 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report with manufacturing and industry. Examples are boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat. Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emissions. Examples of area sources include residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, portable generators, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and consumer products such as barbeque lighter fluid and hair spray. Construction activities that create fugitive dust such as excavation and grading also contribute to area source emissions. Mobile sources refer to emissions from on- and off-road motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. On-road sources may be legally operated on roadways and highways. Off-road sources include aircraft, trains, and construction equipment. Mobile sources account for the majority of the air pollutant emissions within the air basin. Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment such as when fine dust particles are lifted off the ground surface and suspended in the air during high winds. To protect the public health and welfare, the federal and State governments have identified five criteria air pollutants and a host of air toxics; ambient air quality standards through the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act have also been established. The air pollutants for which federal and State standards have been promulgated and which are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in air basins include ozone, carbon monoxide, suspended particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead. Air pollutants are typically classified as primary or secondary pollutants. Carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM), Sulfur Dioxide (S02), and Lead (Pb) are considered primary pollutants because they are emitted directly into the atmosphere. Ozone (03) is considered a secondary pollutant because it is formed through a photochemical reaction in the atmosphere with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), which in the presence of sunlight produces 03. Both the federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations of various pollutants in order to protect public health, as shown in Table 1. The national and State ambient air quality standards have been set at levels whose Table 1. State and Federal Air Quality Standards California Standards' Federal Standards Pollutant Averaging Time CoreemradW Method d Prima " Seconds Methods Ozone(03) 1 Hour 0.09 ppm 180 ma Same Ultraviolet 0.070 pp. Ultraviolet Photometry 0 075 ppm Pnrnary Photom 8 How (137 µg/ma) (147 pg/m� Standard etrY Respirable 24 How 50 m 150 m Same Inertial Particulate Annual Arithmetic GravimcMc or Beta Separation and 3Primary Matter(PMrs) Mean 20 µg/m Attenuation — Standard Gmvimetrlc Anal sis Orange County Sanitation District October 2014 Tetra Tech 4 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report Table 2. State and Federal Air Quality Standards continued California Standards Federal Standards Pollutant Averaging:Time Concurrence Method Prima Seconds Methods Fine Same as Particulate 24 Hour No Separate State Standard 35 µg/ma Pr Inertial Primary Separation and Matter(PM,.,) Standard Annual Arithmetic Cnavalysis c 12 µg/ms Beta or 12 µg/ma l5 µg/ma Aualysrs Mean Bela Attenuation Carbon 8 HOW 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Non-Dispersive Monoxide lour ma Non-Dispersive IOm ma None Infrared (CO) 1 Hour 20 Ppm3 ]ufiared Photometry 35 pp.a Photometry (23 mp/m) �DtR) (40 mg/m) (NDIR) 8 Hom 6 ppm _ (Lake Tahoe) CT m ma) Nitrogen Annual Arithmetic 0.03 pp. 0.053 pp. Same as Monde(NO:) Mean (56 µgood) Gas Phase (l00 µg/ma) Stand a Chemil Phase ummesce 0.18pp. Chand nonesceace nce 1 Hour (339 µghn) 0.10 ppm None Sulfur Dioxide 0.04 pp. 0.14 ppm _ Ultraviolet (SOD 24 How 105 rn 365 ma Fluorescence; Ultraviolet _ 0.5 pp. Specho- 3 How — Fluorescence 1300 ma photometry 0.25 ppm 0A75 pp. _ (Pararosaniline 1 How 655 ma 196 ma Method)' Lead 30 Day Average 1.5 m (Pb)' Calendar Quarter — LS m High Volume Atomic Absorption Success Sampler and Rolling 3-Month a Primary Average — 0.15 µg/m Standard Atomic Absorption visibility Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per Reducing kilometer—visibility of ten miles or Particles more(0.07—30 mites or more for Lake 8 Hom Tahoe)due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70 percent.Method: Bern Attenuation and Transmittance [firou Filter Tape. No Federal Standards Sulfates(SO4) 24 Hom 25 ma Ion Chromatography Hydrogen 1 Be. 0.03 pp. Ultraviolet Sulfide 42 ma Fluorescence Vinyl a 24 Hour 0.01 pp. Gas Chromatography Chloride 26 m a California standards for omne,carbon monoxide(except lake Tahoe),sulfw dioxide(1 and 24 how),nitrogen dioxide,suspended particulate matter(PMl0,and PM2.5)and visibility reducing panicles,are values that are not an be exceeded. Allodersarenotmbe equaled m coweeded. Calimmia ambient=quality standards are fisted to the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 ofthe California Code of Regulations. b National standards(other than omne,particulate matter,and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean)are not to be exceededmore Manonccayem The omne standard is attained when the fourth highest eight how concentration in a you,averaged over Mrre years,is equal to or less data the standard. For PM10,the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24hom average concentration above 150 pg/m3 is equal to or less than one. ForPM2.5,the24howsmndardis attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations,averaged over came years,are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the USEPA for further clarification and caret¢federal policies. c Concentration expressed ficamunits in which itwaspromulgated. Equivalentunits given in parentheses arebased upon areference temperatureof25°Cmdamferencepmssureof760ton. Mwtmeasuremmtsofauquafityaretobeconftc dwareference temperature of25"C and areference pressure of 760 ran;ppm in dais table refers m ppm by volume,or micromoles ofpollutmt per mole m7gas. Orange County Sanitation District October 2014 Term Tech 5 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report Table 3. State and Federal Air Quality Standards continued California Standards' Federal Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration` Method Prima Seconds Methods d Any equivalent procedure which can be shown no the satisfaction ofdre Califomia Air Resources Board(CARS)an give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard maybe used. e National Primary Standards:The levels of air quality necessary,with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. f National Secondary Standards:The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse others,of pollutant. g Reference method as described by the EPA. An"equivalent method"ofmeasurement may be used but must have a"consistent relationship to the reference method"and most be approved by the EPA. h CARB has identiSed lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants'with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures a levels below the ambient concennations specified for these pollutants. Source: California Air Resources Board(http://www.arb.ca.pv/research/aags/mgs2.pdf,updated 06/04/13),and U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(hup://www.gm.gov/air/ctiwda.hhnl andhapJ/www.epa.gov/air4ead/pdfs20081015_pb_rums_final.pdf[see'TR Nofice'ahup://www.ep&govAtn/naags/smdard,/pb/s ph index.land,meessed S tember2014 concentrations could be generally harmful to human health and welfare, and to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort with a margin of safety. While ambient air quality standards have been developed specifically for 03 and NOx, there is no State or federal ambient air quality standard for VOCs. VOCs include many compounds of carbon,but excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, ammonium carbonate, and methane, among others. While the State and federal entities have not established ambient attainment levels for VOCs, they have for 03. Because VOCs react with NOx through photochemical reactions to form ozone, Air Districts, including SCAQMD, have provided VOC significance thresholds for project-level analysis in order to further limit the levels of VOCs available in the atmosphere that can be converted to ozone. 2.5 AIR POLLUTANT CONSTITUENTS AND ATTAINMENT STATUS A state or region is given the status of "attainment" or "unclassified" if ambient air quality standards have not been exceeded. A status of"nonattainment" for particular criteria pollutants is assigned if the ambient air quality standard for that pollutant has been exceeded. Once designated as nonattainment, attainment status may be achieved after three years of data showing non-exceedance of the standard. When an area is reclassified from nonattainment to attainment, it is designated as a maintenance area, indicating the requirement to establish and enforce a plan to maintain attainment with the standard. 2.5.1 Ozone Ozone (03) is a colorless toxic gas that irritates the lungs and damages materials and vegetation. During the summer's long daylight hours, plentiful sunshine provides the energy needed to fuel photochemical reactions between NO2 and VOC which result in the formation Of 03. Conditions that lead to high levels of 03 are adequate sunshine, early morning stagnation in source areas, high surface temperatures, strong and low morning inversions, greatly restricted vertical mixing Orange County Sanitation District October 2014 Tom,Tech 6 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report during the day, and daytime subsidence that strengthens the inversion layer. Short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to ozone at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in changes in breathing patterns, reductions in lung capacity, and increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses. 03 is a problematic air contaminant because a significant portion of the ozone (and ozone precursors) is from the heavily populated SCAB. Maximum ozone concentrations in the SCAB usually are recorded during summer months. Under the State standards, the SCAB is classified as a nonattainment area for ozone. 2.5.2 Nitrogen Dioxides The forms of nitrogen oxide that are important in air pollution are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is a colorless, odorless gas formed by a combination of nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperatures and pressures.NO2 is a reddish-brown gas formed by the combination of NO with oxygen. Combustion in motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries and other industrial operations, as well as ships, railroads and aircraft, are the primary sources of NO. NO2 at atmospheric concentrations is a potential irritant and can cause coughing in healthy persons, due to increase resistance to air flow and airway contraction. Larger decreases in lung functions are observed in individuals with preexisting respiratory illness. Long- term exposure to NO2 can potentially lead to increased levels of respiratory illness in children. NOx is one of the main ingredients involved in the formation of ground-level ozone, which can trigger serious respiratory problems. Under the federal and California standards, the SCAB is in attainment status. 2.5.3 Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is a product of inefficient combustion, principally from automobiles and other mobile sources of pollution. In many areas of California, CO emissions from sources such as wood-burning stoves and fireplaces also can be measurable contributors during cold-weather months. Industrial sources of pollution generally contribute less than 10 percent of ambient CO levels. Peak CO levels occur typically during winter months because of a combination of seasonal contributions from home heating devices and stagnant weather conditions. CO reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and in high concentrations can cause death. At lower concentrations,people exposed experience dizziness and headaches. Under the federal standards, the SCAB is in attainment status. The SCAB is unclassified under the California standards. 2.5.4 Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide (S02) is produced when any sulfur-containing fuel is burned. Chemical plants that treat or refine sulfur or sulfur-containing chemicals also emit SO2. Because of the Orange County Sanitation District October 2014 Tet2 Tech 7 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report complexity of the chemical reactions that convert S02 to other compounds (such as sulfates), peak concentrations of S02 occur at different times of the year in different parts of the State, depending on local fuel characteristics, weather, and topography. S02 can cause bronchia constriction and may aggravate respiratory diseases. In moist environments, S02 may combine with water to form sulfuric acid, a component of acid deposition. Under the federal and California standards,the SCAB is in attainment status. 2.5.5 Fine Particulates (PM10, PM2.5) Particulate matter in the air is composed of windblown fugitive dust; particles emitted from combustion sources (usually carbon particles); and organic, sulfate, and nitrate aerosols formed in the air from emitted hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, and oxides of nitrogen. In 1984, the ARB adopted standards for fine particulate (PM10 - particulate matter of less than 10 microns), and phased out the total suspended particulate (TSP) standards used up to that time. PM10 standards were substituted for TSP standards because PM10 corresponds to the size range of inhalable particulate related to human health. In 1987, EPA also replaced national TSP standards with PM10 standards. In July 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted new standards for fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter(PM2,5). Particulates are a public health and welfare concern for several reasons. Particulates may be intrinsically toxic because of their inherent chemical and/or physical characteristics. Particulate matter may interfere with one or more of the mechanisms that normally clear the respiratory tract. Finally, fine particulates, which are easily carried deep into the lungs, may act as carriers of absorbed toxic substances. Thus elevated particulate concentrations may exacerbate pre- existing respiratory diseases such as bronchitis. Particulate matter, especially fine particulate, also interferes with visibility. Under the federal and State standards, the SCAB is classified as a nonattainment area for fine particulates. 2.5.6 Lead Lead is found in old paints and coatings, plumbing, and various other materials. Once in the blood stream, lead can cause damage to the brain, nervous system, and other body systems. Children are highly susceptible to the effects of lead. The entire SCAB is in attainment for the federal and State AAQS for lead. 2.5.7 Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are a diverse group of air pollutants that can affect human health, but have not had ambient air quality standards established for them. This is not because they are fundamentally different from the pollutants discussed above, but because their effects tend to be local rather than regional. CARB has designated nearly 200 compounds as TACs. Orange county sanitation District October 2014 Tetra Tech 8 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report Additionally, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)has implemented control measures for a number of compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to a relatively few compounds, the most important being particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines. Additional information about TACs and their health impacts are provided in Section 2.7. 2.6 EXISTING REGIONAL AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS Measurements of ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants are used by the USEPA and CARB to assess and classify the air quality of each air basin, county, or, in some cases, a specific developed area. The classification is determined by comparing monitoring data with national and California air quality standards. If a pollutant concentration in an area is lower than the standard, the area is classified as being in"attainment" If the pollutant exceeds the standard, the area is in marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme "nonattainmem," depending on the magnitude of the air quality standard exceedance. If there are not enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area,the area is designated"unclassified." 2.6.1 South Coast Air Basin The SCAB is surrounded by mountains trapping the air and its pollutants in the valleys or basins below. This area includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. Bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, the SCAB is an area of high air pollution potential. The regional climate within the Basin is considered semi-arid and is characterized by wamt summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. Air quality within the Basin is influenced by a wide range of emissions sources—such as dense population centers,heavy vehicular traffic,and industry. The annual average temperature varies throughout the Basin,ranging from the low to mid 60s to over 100 degrees during the summer, measured in Fahrenheit (OF). Riverside County is located in the inland, eastern portion of the Basin and experiences more variation in temperature than the coastal areas. The annual average temperature in the SCAB region of the County is approximately 60°F, although temperatures can often exceed 90°F. Typically the hottest months are July and August, and the coldest months are December and January. The majority of annual rainfall in the Basin occurs between December and March. Summer rainfall is minimal and generally limited to scattered thundershowers in coastal regions. The annual average total rainfall in the SCAB area is 9.1 inches. The Basin experiences a persistent temperature inversion, which is characterized by increasing temperature with increasing altitude. This inversion limits the vertical dispersion of air contaminants,holding them relatively near the ground. As the sun warns the ground and the lower air layer, the temperature of the lower air layer approaches the Orange County Sanitation District October 2014 Term Tech 9 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report temperature of the base of the inversion (upper) layer until the inversion layer finally breaks, allowing vertical mixing with the lower layer. Aside from a persistent temperature inversion, the vertical dispersion of air contaminants in the Basin is also affected by wind conditions. The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations. Conversely, on days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are the lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas in the Basin are transported eastward,predominantly into Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Santa Ana winds, which are strong and dry north or northeasterly winds that Occur during the fall and winter months,disperse air contaminants differently through the Basin, generally resulting in worse air conditions in the western parts of the Basin. Santa Ana conditions tend to last for several days at a time. SCAB has very low average wind speeds; the dominant daily wind pattern is an onshore 8 to 12 mph during the day and offshore 3 to 5 mph winds during the night. These wind patterns are disrupted occasionally by winter storms or strong northeasterly Santa Ana winds from the mountains and deserts northeast of the SCAB. Table 2 lists criteria air pollutants and their attainment status in the SCAB. Table 4. Pollutants Attainment Status in the South Coast Air Basin Air Pollutants State Federal Ozone 1-Hour Extreme Ozone 8-How Nonetteinmwt Uri hmified/Attainment PM" Nonattainment Nonattainment PM 24-Hour Unclassified Attainment PM, Annual Nonetteinmwt N/A NO Attainment Unclassified/Attainment CO Unclassified Uridasafied/Attainmcat SOa Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Unclassified/Attainmwt/Nonattainment P'at ate Sulfate Accormen H dro en Sulfide Unclassified Visibility Reducing Particles I Unclassified Spume:California Air Resources Board,2013,htip://w .mb.ca.gov/desig/adm/admhtm 2.7 TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS TACs are airborne substances that me capable of causing chronic (i.e., of long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health. They include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. Lifetime cancer risk is defined as the increased chance of contracting cancer over a 70-year period as a result of exposure to a toxic substance or substances. It is the product of the estimated daily exposure of each suspected carcinogen by its respective cancer unit risk factor. Orange County Sanitation District October 2014 Term Tech 10 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report The end result represents a worst-case estimate of cancer risk. The ARB has produced a series of estimated inhalation cancer risk maps based on modeled levels of outdoor composite toxic pollutant levels. The 2014 estimated map indicates that the majority of Orange County is exposed to an inhalation cancer risk of less than 250 persons per million. These risk maps depict inhalation cancer risk due to modeled outdoor toxic pollutant levels, and do not account for cancer risk due to other types of exposure. The largest contributors to inhalation cancer risk are diesel engines. 2.8 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Sensitive receptors are populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large. While the ambient air quality standards are designed to protect public health and are generally regarded as conservative for healthy adults, there is greater concern to protect adults who are ill or have long-term respiratory problems as well as young children whose lungs are not fully developed. According to ARB, sensitive receptors include children less than 14 years of age, the elderly over 65 years of age, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. The SCAQMD identifies the following as locations that may contain a high concentration of sensitive receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities. There are schools and residences located along Red Hill Avenue. The closest sensitive receptor within the segment of Red Hill Avenue where the greatest construction disturbance is planned to occur is the Heritage Elementary School and Sycamore High School, both located at the intersection of Valencia and Red Hill Avenues, approximately 50 feet southeast of the Project site. Sycamore High School is more limited in size than a traditional high school campus, designed for adult and concurrent students to earn a high school diploma. This closest sensitive receptor was chosen for analysis in this report. The playground of another school, Jeane Thonnan Elementary School, immediately adjacent on the east to A.G. Middle School, backs up to Red Hill Avenue at Sycamore Avenue. The joint elementary and middle school campus is well north of Edinger Avenue, the northernmost limit of construction for the new Trunk sewer. Construction closest to the Jenne Thorman Elementary School, which lies nearest to the Red Hill/Sycamore intersection, will be limited to manhole rehabilitation. The distance between the planned manhole rehabilitation and the edge of the school playground is approximately 50 feet. This is the same as the distance between the limits of the Red Hill Avenue Trunk sewer construction (requiring open trenching to a depth of approximately 20 feet), and the Heritage Elementary and Sycamore High School campuses. The scenario chosen for analysis in this report represents the worst-case scenario. Orange County sanitation District October 2014 Term Tech 11 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report 3. AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT This air quality assessment includes a discussion of applicable significance thresholds, analysis methodologies, and results. The analysis was prepared following the guidance provided by the SCAQMD and CARB. These assessments include potential impacts from direct and indirect emissions during construction and operation of the Project. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The SCAQMD Handbook guidance document was used to prepare the following analysis. 3.1.1 Criteria Pollutants SCAQMD has published thresholds of significance for air quality. A project has a significant air quality impact if it does one of the following: • Generates total emissions that exceed the thresholds shown in Table 3; and/or • Maximum daily localized emissions are greater than the Localized Significance Thresholds (LST), resulting in predicted ambient concentrations in the vicinity of the project site greater than the most stringent ambient air quality standards for CO and NO2 (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2008). • Maximum localized PM10 or PM2.5 emissions during construction are greater than the applicable LSTs, resulting in predicted ambient concentrations in the vicinity of the site to exceed 50 µg/m3 over five hours(SCAQMD Rule 403 control requirement). • The project would not be compatible with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality polices. The project is not compatible with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality polices, if it: — causes an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; — causes or contributes to new air quality violations; — delays timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP); or — exceeds the assumptions utilized in the SCAQMD's AQMP. Table 5. Significant Emission Thresholds Criteria Pollutant Construction Operation Carbon Monoxide CO bs/ 550 550 Oxides of Nitro Ox bs/de 100 55 Volatile Or is Com .ands OC (lb,/day) 75 55 Oxides of Suffix SOx Ibs/da 150 150 Particulate Matter PM, Ibs/da 150 150 Particulate Matter PM,,)(Ibs/day) 55 55 Lead bs/da 3 3 Greenhouse Gases CO2e (MT/year)' 10,000 10,000 Source:SCAQMD,2013. Orange County Sanitation District October 2014 Term Tech 12 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report 3.1.2 Toxic Air Contaminants Based on the criteria set forth in the SCAQMD Handbook, the Project would have a significant toxic air contaminant impact if: e On-site stationary sources emit carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that individually or cumulatively exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of ten in one million or an acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0 (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2005). e Hazardous materials associated with on-site stationary sources result in an accidental release of air toxic emissions or acutely hazardous materials posing a threat to public health and safety. e The Project would be occupied primarily by sensitive individuals within a quarter mile of any existing facility that emits air toxic contaminants which could result in a health risk for pollutants identified in District Rule 1401 (South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality Management District 1993). 3.1.3 Greenhouse Gases Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole, including changes in temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Historical records indicate that global climate changes have occurred in the past due to natural phenomena; however, data indicate that current global conditions differ from past climate changes in rate and magnitude. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the increase in atmospheric GHGs is largely the result of human activities, namely fossil fuel combustion, land use changes and agriculture (IPCC 2007). GHGs are those compounds in the Earth's atmosphere that play a critical role in determining the Earth's surface temperature. Specifically, these gases allow high-frequency solar radiation to enter the Earth's atmosphere, but retain the low frequency energy which is radiated back from the Earth towards space, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. Increased concentrations of GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere have been linked to global climate change and such conditions as rising surface temperatures, melting icebergs and snowpack, rising sea levels, and the increased frequency and magnitude of severe weather conditions. GHGs include carbon dioxide (COA methane (CH4), ozone (03), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SFb). Carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG in the atmosphere. GHGs are the result of both natural and anthropogenic activities. Forest fires, decomposition, industrial processes, landfills, and consumption of fossil fuels for power generation, transportation, heating, and cooking are the primary sources of GHG emissions. Orange county sanitation District October 2014 Term Tech 13 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report In response to growing scientific and political concern regarding global climate change, California has recently adopted a series of laws to reduce both the level of GHGs in the atmosphere and to reduce emissions of GHGs from commercial and private activities within the State. In September 2002, Governor Gray Davis signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1493, requiring the development and adoption of regulations to achieve "the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases" emitted by noncommercial passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles used primarily for personal transportation in the State. It should be noted that setting emission standards on automobiles is solely the responsibility of the federal EPA. The federal CAA allows States to set state-specific emission standards on automobiles if they first obtain a waiver from the USEPA. The USEPA denied California's request for a waiver, thus delaying CARB's proposed implementation schedule for setting emission standards on automobiles to help reduce GHGs. In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05, which established GHG emissions targets for the State, as well as a process to ensure the targets are met. The order directed the Secretary for California EPA to report every two years on the State's progress toward meeting the Governor's GHG emission reduction targets. As a result of this executive order, the California Climate Action Team (CAT), led by the Secretary of the California EPA, was formed. The CAT is made up of representatives from a number of State agencies and was formed to implement global warming emission reduction programs and reporting on the progress made toward meeting Statewide targets established under the Executive Order. State agency members include the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency; Department of Food and Agriculture; Resources Agency; CARB; California Energy Commission; the Public Utilities Commission; and Department of Water Resources. The CAT published its Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature in March 2006, in which it laid out forty-six specific emission reduction strategies for reducing GHG emissions and reaching the targets established in the executive order. In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32, into law. AB 32 commits the State to achieving the following: e 2000 GHG emission levels by 2010 (which represents an approximately 11 percent reduction from business as usual) e 1990 levels by 2020 (approximately 25 percent below business as usual) To achieve these goals, AB 32 mandates that CARB establish a quantified emissions cap, institute a schedule to meet the cap, implement regulations to reduce Statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources, and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure Orange county sanitation District October 2014 Tetra Tech 14 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report that reductions are achieved. The following schedule outlines the CARD actions mandated by AB 32: • By January 1, 2008, CARB adopts regulations for mandatory(GHG) emissions reporting, defines 1990 emissions baseline for California (including emissions from imported power), and adopts it as the 2020 statewide cap. ' • By January 1, 2009, CARB adopts plan to affect GHG reductions from significant sources of GHG via regulations,market mechanisms and other actions. • During 2009, CARB drafts rule language to implement its plan and holds a series of public workshops on each measure(including market mechanisms). • By January 1,2010, early action measures take effect. • During 2010, CARB, after workshops and public hearings, conducts series of rulemakings to adopt GHG regulations including rules governing market mechanisms. • By January 1, 2011, CARB completes major rulemakings for reducing GHGs, including market mechanisms. CARB may revise and adopt new rules after January 1, 2011 to achieve the 2020 goal. • By January 1, 2012, GHG rules and market mechanisms adopted by CARB take effect and become legally enforceable. • December 31,2020 is the deadline for achieving 2020 GHG emissions cap. CARB's list of discrete early action measures that can be adopted and implemented before January 1, 2010 was approved on June 21, 2007, and focuses on major Statewide contributing sources and industries, not on individual development projects or practices. These early action measures are: 1) a low-carbon fuel standard; 2) reduction of refrigerant losses from motor vehicle air conditioning system maintenance; and 3) increased methane capture from landfills. Recently, the CARB released emissions inventory estimates for 1990 through 2004. There has been activity at the federal level with respect to the regulation of GHGs. In Massachusetts vs. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket No. 05-1120), argued November 29, 2006 and decided April 2, 2007,the U.S. Supreme Court held that not only did the EPA have authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but the EPA's reasons for not regulating this area did not fit the statutory requirements. As such, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA should be required to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. To date, the EPA has not developed a regulatory program for greenhouse gas emissions, nor has it been mandated to do so. t CABB has adopted 427 million metric tonnes o carbon dioxide equivalent p f eq (MMTCO2e)as the tota[Stafewide greenhouse gas 1990 emissions level and the 2020 emissions limit. See htq,.-# nv.orb.ca.govfcc/inventoryll990level/19901evel.htm(last visited 811412008). Orange County Sanitation District October 2014 Tetra Tech 15 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.7, define a threshold of significance as an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non- compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. CEQA gives wide latitude to lead agencies in determining what impacts are significant and does not prescribe thresholds of significance, analytical methodologies, or specific mitigation measures.' CEQA leaves the determination of significance to the reasonable discretion of the lead agency and encourages lead agencies to develop and publish thresholds of significance to use in determining the significance of environmental effects. The SCAQMD released a draft guidance document regarding interim CEQA GHG significance thresholds in October 2008. SCAQMD proposed a tiered approach, whereby the level of detail and refinement needed to determine significance increases with a project's total GHG emissions. In December 2008, SCAQMD adopted interim CEQA GHG significance thresholds for use only when SCAQMD is the lead agency on projects. These thresholds apply to industrial projects only, and include a 10,000 metric ton CO2e screening level. For purposes of this analysis, the 10,000 metric ton CO2e threshold for industrial projects are considered applicable to this project. While it is difficult to predict the specific impact of one project's incremental contribution to the global effects of GHG emissions due to a variety of factors, including the complex and long term nature of such effects and the global scale of climate change, it is possible to determine whether a project is implementing design strategies consistent with the guidance that is available. Thus, if a project implements design strategies consistent with the goals of AB 32, the project will not be considered to have a significant impact with respect to global climate change, either on a project-specific basis or with respect to its contribution to a cumulative impact on global climate change. 3.2 METHODOLOGY This section presents the methodology used to determine the emissions and health risks from construction activities of the proposed project. 3.2.1 Construction — Regional and Local The construction process is typically conducted in phases. SCAQMD's emission model, CalEEMod, has been used to estimate the emissions during construction. The CalEEMOd model divides the construction processes into phases, including demolition, mass site grading, fine site Climate Change and CEQA,Presentation to the Climate Action Team, Cynthia Bryant, Director, Governor's Office of Planning and Research,September 19, 2007. Orange County Sanitation District October 2014 Tetra Tech 16 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report grading, trenching, building construction, architectural coating and paving. These model settings can be modified to fit applicable features of a specific project. Construction of the Project would occur over the course of nine months, starting in Much 2015 and ending in April 2016. For purposes of this environmental review, it is assumed that all construction activities would be completed in the minimum timeframe feasible. This is of particular importance as construction emissions are directly related to the intensity of construction activities, and significance criteria are established for emissions levels representing the `worst-case day." Actual construction may proceed at a less intensive pace, which would result in lower daily emissions. For this project,the following construction phases are assumed: • Phase 1: Manhole Rehabilitation; • Phase 2: New Trunk Sewer; • Phase 3: Sewer Improvements; and • Phase 4: Paving. Each construction phase can generate the following: (1) fugitive dust emissions resulting from soil disturbance activity; (2) emissions of air pollutants from fuel combustion in construction equipment; and (3) emissions of air pollutants from fuel combustion in vehicles used for worker commute and material hauling and construction debris disposal. Daily emissions during construction were forecasted by developing a reasonable estimate of a construction schedule and applying the mobile-source and fugitive dust emissions factors derived from CalEEMOd.' The localized effects from the on-site portion of daily emissions were evaluated at sensitive receptor locations potentially impacted by the Project according to the SCAQMD's air dispersion modeling guidelines. Values represent the maximum concentrations from a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area (SRA) and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. For PM10 and PM2.5, emissions were derived based on requirements in SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Localized impacts compared to the Ambient Air Quality Standards are applicable to the following pollutants:NOx, CO,PM10, and PM2.5. 3 CalEEMod is an emissions estimation model that is based, in part, on SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook guidelines and methodologies;required by the County of Orange to estimate air analyses. Orange County sanitation District October 2014 Tithe Tech 17 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report 3.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) has prepared the General Reporting Protocol (GRP) for calculating and reporting GHG emissions from a number of general and industry- specific activities.' No specific protocols are available for land use projects, so the CCAR GRP has been adapted to address GHG emissions from the Project. The information provided in this section is consistent with the CCAR GRP's minimum reporting requirements. The CCAR GRP recommends the separation of GHG emissions into direct and indirect emissions. Direct emissions are emitted from sources that are owned or controlled by the project, while indirect emissions occur because of a project's actions, but are produced by sources owned or controlled by a different entity. The World Resources Institute (WRI), in cooperation with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, has developed the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, which promotes accounting and reporting standards for business. The GHG Protocol Corporate Standards recommends the classification of GHG emissions into three categories that reflect different aspects of ownership or control over emissions. They include: • Scope 1: Direct, combustion of fossil fuels by equipment or vehicles owned or controlled by the project(e.g.,natural gas, propane, gasoline, and diesel) • Scope 2: Indirect, emissions associated with purchased electricity or purchased steam. • Scope 3: Indirect emissions associated with other emissions sources, such as third-party vehicles and embodied energy. CARB asserts that consideration of indirect emissions provides a more complete picture of the GHG footprint of a facility: "As facilities consider changes that would affect their emissions — addition of a cogeneration unit to boost overall efficiency even as it increases direct emissions, for example—the relative impact on total (direct plus indirect) emissions by the facility should be monitored. Annually reported indirect energy usage also aids the conservation awareness of the facility and provides information" to CARB to be considered for future strategies by the industrial sector(California Air Resources Board 2007). For these reasons, CARB has proposed requiring the calculation of direct and indirect GHG emissions as part of the AB 32 reporting requirements. Therefore, direct and indirect emissions have been calculated for the proposed Project. For purposes of this analysis, it is considered reasonable and consistent with criteria pollutant calculations to consider only the GHG emissions resulting from the incremental increase in usage of on-road mobile vehicles, electricity, and natural gas upon implementation of the Project 4 California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol Version 3.0, 2008. Orange County Sanitation District October 2014 Term Tech 18 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report as Project-related. In addition, since potential impacts resulting from GHG emissions are long- term rather than acute, GHG emissions are calculated on an annual basis. Not all GHGs exhibit the same ability to induce climate change; as a result, GHG contributions are commonly quantified in the equivalent mass of COY denoted as CO2C. Mass emissions are calculated by converting pollutant specific emissions to CO2e emissions by applying the proper global warming potential (GWP) value.' There are three types of GHG from fuel combustion, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20). GHG emissions are presented as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). CO2e is computed-based on global warming equivalence. The CH4 global warming equivalence is 21 times that of COY and the N20 global warming equivalence is 310 times that of COz. Mathematically, the CO2e can be represented by the following equation: CO2e Emissions = CO2 Emissions+ [21 x CH4 Emissions] + [310 x N20 Emissions] The CalEEMod model was used to estimate the GHG emissions during the construction phases of the proposed Project. For this Project, the major source of GHG is the combustion of fuel in construction equipment, in vehicles used to haul materials, and in vehicles used by worker commuting to/from the site. Based on the construction schedule, types and quantities of construction equipment, and numbers of haul trucks, etc., the maximum CO2e emissions were estimated. Appendix A provides the CalEEMOd run file. For construction GHGs, emissions quantified me amortized over the life of a project. To amortize the emissions over the life of a project, the SCAQMD guidelines recommend calculating the total greenhouse gas emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by the project life (i.e., 50 years for residential projects and 25 years for commercial projects) then adding that number to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. The expected life of the proposed Project is 30 years or more, depending on equipment replacement and repowering, before decommissioning.` 3.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS This section presents the results of the air quality impact analyses performed for the Project. ' CO2e was developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCQ,and published in its Second Assessment Report(SAR) 1996 SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document—Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas(GHG)Significance Thresholds, 2008. Orange County Sanitation District October 2014 Tetra Tech 19 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report 3.3.1 Regional Construction Impacts For purposes of this environmental review, it is assumed that all construction activities would be completed in the minimum timeframe feasible. This is of particular importance as construction emissions are directly related to the intensity of construction activities, and significance criteria are established for emissions levels representing the "worst-case day." Actual construction may proceed at a less intensive pace,which would result in lower daily emissions. Each construction phase can generate the following: (1) fugitive dust emissions resulting from soil disturbance activity; (2) emissions of air pollutants from fuel combustion in construction equipment; and (3) emissions of air pollutants from fuel combustion in vehicles used for worker commute and material hauling and construction debris disposal. OCSD is committed to implementing `Best Practices" during all construction phases of the Project to further reduce emissions. Figure 2 shows the construction schedules and Figure 3 shows the construction equipment. During construction, the proposed Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). The purpose of Rule 403 is to reduce man-made fugitive dust. Rule 403 requires implementing control measures to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions and includes a performance standard that prohibits visible emissions from crossing any property line.' Dust control measures, such as water application on dry soil and reduced vehicles travelling on unpaved roads, are standard mitigation techniques. Project construction will be required to comply with Rule 403. Implementing the dust suppression techniques specified in Rule 403 can reduce the fugitive dust generation(and thus the PM10 component)by 50 percent or more. Therefore, the estimation of fugitive dust emissions during Project construction assumes Rule 403 compliance. Emissions were evaluated using conservative estimates representing a worst case day. Table 4 displays emissions data associated with the Project's construction activities by phase. As Table 4 shows, construction-related daily (short-term) emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, S02, and PM. With incorporation of recommended mitigation measures, impacts would further be reduced. Thus, Project construction emissions would result in a less than significant impact. 'South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, http://H .agmd.govlmleslreglregO4lr4O3.pdf Orange County sanitation District October 2014 Tate Tech 20 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report Figure 2. Construction Schedule wuaovmm sawwe r zms am nmu• 1 z ) a s s ) e s )o u u 1 z a . s osaua@,m. s...e wmm.amamv-eem Pa' pp Slannm 6/23/A15 Gtl nu 9/e/AIS D-',(mantle] 3 P,eatieu(tlay» 5)l10 a aam Duemm(ma tlul w.mm(aaYal _-.. Dwatim Lma ea] _. Dwrim(LYaI -v. kanOm 5/3/IU16 GE OaY 6/3/IU16 Pvtlm(moetlu] 1 unmxm(a.r» zsao Orange County Sanitation Diatriut October 2014 Tetra Tech 21 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report Figure 3. Construction Equipment Figure 3. Construction Equipment Crane-Tr3:leee13i M% Sewer lmProareards(Trenching) EvanvMor-Tr2,tevel2;M% S./Waders/BVWr.o and hp)opemen ad.0 ME loud fxbr(m A howa per tlay FodfRFTr2:levelY 40% S Excavators(157 hp)operahMada 057 load faMr for 10 hours pm dey GntlepT.r2:leve12:40% O[he,C.r .n EqulpmenlT,3;WM3:M% 2 0ump T�ueks(65 hp)opmaWy ne 0b21oatl factor he lO Murs pertley Rough Terrain ForkYll:Tier2:Level?:40% 20du,Egwpeunl(TocI a ) (190 hp)opereEryrte0b2bM fxbr forlOMurs pertlay Rubb:rTrrd DOEer:Tr3:I 13,M% 2WanrT (189bp)operAn a0.5badfubrforlOMurspertlay R.bberllrad Lnatlephr3,W.13/25% 2 eublon Tved.(258 hp)operalongat a 0.59 batl fxbrfor lO Mumpeed, Seraper:Tr 3:Wwl3i II TnRorAmo:er/Bw,Mo, :T r2:leve12:40% Mwholegehhabiliteaon uprenching) Trencher,Ter;IeeeIZ M% 1 Tnabrs/loaders/Babhaa(25 bp)apenti,..055 bad farbr fe c Murs pn tlq 1 Pun,Tree(65 hp)opmrtrg A 0.621md Enter fur 8 hours pu day a mLnr egwpneot(Tee nub] (190 hp)upef.Mg a c 0521md four(fuf B hours per day ?Into, m'a(189 hp)npremorg of a 0.5 Wd rams fnv a hours pre day New Trask Sewer(Trencbiron 2 re—nom(157 hp)opgntiog Ma OS7lend&me for BMwe per day 1 Trarmrs/Lowden/Baduort(25 hp)openuog at a O55 bad fame Am Mors pee day 1 Rent End Loader operne,a a 035 load(near tar 8 hours W day 4 Deep Trunks(65 hp)operaMg n a Ob2 and famar for 8 hours W day 4IXher EgWpaeM(ToolTrehs) (190hp)operiN Ea0621oatlf Ro Shounperday 2Wanr Tmdm(189hp)opermngRa0.5bdfxa ShomW&y paving I are.Sraeeper led bp)operaEng at a055 bad Enter per day 1 paver(125 bp)operdengn a055 bad Enter for bours per day 1 Roller(165 hp)open6ng at a055load furor for Murs per day 1 TraMrs/loatlen/BarHrces(l08 hp)opera4ng.a O55 mad f,.r for 3 Mwa pn day 1 Gmdolmasher(85 hp)a orrear,na os5loon(afar be B Murs per day 40 rrEgWpaant(TwITmzlw) (190hp)operaM da042batlfaobrfm BMur r lay 1waurI (109M1p)eperAngnao.5bMfasW'mr Bbrowpmday Orange County Sanitation District October 2014 Tetra Tech 22 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report Table 6. Re 'onal Project Construction Emissions' Phase VOCI NO. I CO I so, PMm PMzs 2015 New Trunk Sewer 3.84 31.67 17.70 0.05 38.85 4.99 Max.Regional Emissions 3.84 31.67 17.70 0.05 38.85 4.99 SCAQMD Regional Thresholds Obs/day) 75 100 550 150 150 55 Above,Tic ow Threshold? 71.16 68.33 532.30 149.95 I11.15 50.01 Above Threshold? I No I No No No No No 2016 New Trunk Sewer 1.42 11.23 6.90 ANNo 4 1.92 Sewer Improvements 0.60 4.77 3.01 5 0.82 Manhole Rehabilitation 0.11 1.15 0.55 6 0.22 Paving0.55 4.33 2.58 3 0.66 Max.Regional Emissions 2.68 21.4 113.04 8 3.62 SCAQMD Regional Thresholds Ibs/da 75 100 550 55 AboveBelow Threshold? 72.32 78.52 536.96 62 51.38 Above Threshold? No No No No 'Compiled using the CalEEMod emissions inventory model. The equipment mix and use assumption for each phase is provided in Figure 2. b PM10 emissions estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression. 3.3.2 Localized Construction Impacts The SCAQMD requires that if project size is greater than five (5) acres, or if localized emissions exceed Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) look-up thresholds, dispersion modeling must be performed to demonstrate potential air quality impacts resulting from on-site construction emissions. It is estimated that the maximum daily area to be disturbed would be less than five (5)acres. Therefore,the LST look-up thresholds are used. Results are shown in Table 5. Table 7. Localized Project Construction Emissions a Phase NOx I CO I PMr pMLS 2015 On-Site New Trunk Sewer 5.70 2.97 0.23 0.23 Max.Regional Emissions 5.70 2.97 0.23 0.23 Localized Significance Threshold bs/da 81 485 1 1 Above Below Threshold? 75.30 482.03 0.77 0.77 Above Threshold? No No No I No 2016 On-Site New Trunk Sewer 2.02 1.17 0.08 0.08 Sewer Improvements 0.86 M482.79O.83 4 0.04 Manhole Rehabilitation 0.02 1 0.01 Pavin 0.78 4 0A4 Max.Re ional Emissions 3.68 7 0.17 Localized Significance Threshold bs/da 81 1 Above/Below Threshold? 77.32 Above Threshold? No No Compiled using SCAQMD Appendix C-Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables s PM,b emissions estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression. As shown in Table 5, PMro, PM2.5, CO, NO2, and S02 concentrations would not exceed California ambient air quality standards. Therefore, with respect to localized emissions from construction activities, impacts would be less than significant and concentrations would be further reduced with mitigation measures. Orange County sanitation District October 2014 Tetra Tech 23 3.0 Air Quality Assessment 3.3.3 Construction Related Odors Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the use of architectural coatings and solvents, and diesel powered on- and off-road equipment. SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits the amount of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and solvents, which lowers the emissions of odorous compounds. Due to the nature of the construction activities and the relatively small footprint of the various construction sites, few pieces of diesel powered equipment will be operating simultaneously. Therefore, construction activities we predicted to create a less than significant impact with respect to odors. As such, project-related odor impacts during construction would be less than significant. 3.3.4 Construction Related GHGs Emissions of GHGs were calculated for both years of Project construction. Results are presented in Table 6. As shown, the highest net increase in temporary GHG emissions from on-road mobile source emissions and on site construction equipment relative to the threshold would be well below 10,000 metric tons per year. Construction GHG emissions amortized over a 30-year lifetime is 87 metric tons of CO2e. For construction-phase Project emissions, GHGs are quantified and amortized over the life of the Project. As indicated in Table 6, the GHG emissions do not exceed the established annual threshold in either construction year, resulting in a less than significant impact. The GHG emissions estimates presented in Table 6 do not take into account the GHG-reducing construction practices that will be implemented as part of dust suppression techniques detailed in Section 3.5 in this report. The construction measures described in Section 3.5 do not include the further measure of limiting construction vehicle idling. Implementation of these construction measures would reduce GHG emissions, and would represent an improvement above "business as usual." Table 8. Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions CO2e etric Tons Emission Source 2015 2016 Total GHG Emissions' 795.72 558.42 1,354 SCAQMD GHG Threshold ndustrial Pro'ects 10,000 10.000 Over/Under Threshold? (9,204) (9,442) Exceed 17veshold? No No ' Compiled using the CALEEMOD emissions inventory model. The output files are provided in Appendix A of this Technical Report. 3.3.5 Operational Related Odors According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Orange County sanitation District Camber 2014 Tetra Tech 24 3.0 Air Quality Assessment proposed Project would not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. This Project will implement improvements to the Gisler-Red Hill Sewer System, and will occur at or below ground. Once construction is complete and paving has occurred,no odors we expected to be generated. Therefore, implementation of the Project would have a less than significant impact. 3.3.6 Consistency with Regional Air Quality Plan The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of certain pollutants for which the SCAB is in non-attainment (i.e., ozone and PMto). The Project would be subject to the SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial Counties and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation,the economy, community development and the environment. SCAG serves as the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the southern California region. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), which includes Growth Management and Regional Mobility chapters that form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP, and are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. Both the RCPG and AQMP strategy incorporate projections from local planning documents. The determination of AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the long-term influence of a project on air quality in the Basin. Neither the development of the Project nor its operation would result in short-term regional impacts. The Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 and would implement all feasible mitigation measures for control of PM10 and PM25; the Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the AQMP for control of fugitive dust. Because the proposed Project would not result in a change in dwelling units or occupants or activities, it is not in conflict with the AQMP. The Project's long-term influence would also be consistent with the goals and policies of the AQMP and is, therefore, considered consistent with the SCAQMD's AQMP. Orange County sanitation District October 2014 Tetra Tech 25 3.0 Air Quality Assessment 3.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 3.4.1 Construction With respect to the Project's construction-period air quality emissions and cumulative Basin- wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce regional-impact pollutant emissions, as outlined in the AQMP pursuant to Federal Clean Air Act mandates. As such, the proposed Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements, and implement all feasible mitigation measures. In addition, the proposed Project would comply with adopted AQMP emissions control measures. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403 compliance, the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction projects Basin-wide. The greatest potential for TAC emissions at the work areas for the proposed Project would involve diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during grading and excavation activities. According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air taxies are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. "Individual Cancer Risk" is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of TACs over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology. While it is anticipated that much of the site grading would be accomplished within a 4-month time period, unforeseen delays could extend these activities. The proposed Project's contribution to cancer risk from construction activities would be short-term, less than significant and localized. Related projects that have not already been built would not result in a long-term (i.e., over a 70- year lifetime) substantial source of TAC emissions. Given the size of the expected related projects in close proximity, related projects would not be expected to contribute to a cumulative construction impact. Thus, TAC emissions from the related projects are anticipated to be less than significant individually and cumulatively. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities at each related project would likely include the use of architectural coatings and solvents. SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits the amount of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and solvents. Via mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules, it is anticipated that construction activities or materials used in the construction of related projects would not create objectionable odors. Thus, odor impacts from related projects are anticipated to be less than significant individually, as well as cumulatively in conjunction with the proposed Project. Orange County sanitation District October 2014 Tetra Tech 26 3.0 Air Quality Assessment 3.4.2 Global Climate Change As indicated in the analysis above, the estimate of Project GHG emissions during construction does not exceed the SCAQMD's established thresholds. Further, the emissions estimate does not reflect improvements in technology and other reductions in GHG emissions that are likely to occur pursuant to State regulations, such as AB 1493, SB 1368, AB 32, and Executive Order S- 3-5, as well as future federal and/or State regulations. Implementation of the Project is supportive of the State's goals related to the reduction of greenhouse gases. Thus, the Project does not result in a cumulatively significant impact; therefore,no mitigation is required. 3.5 MITIGATION MEASURES The Project will be required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing air pollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementing dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Implementing these dust suppression techniques will reduce the fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM10 component). Impacts from the Project are less than significant; however, compliance with these recommended mitigation measures would further reduce impacts. Applicable dust suppression techniques include the following: • AQ-1 Water active sites. Locations where grading is to occur will be watered before earth moving activities; • AQ-2 All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer); • AQ-3 All off-road diesel powered construction equipment less than 175 horsepower shall meet or exceed Tier 2 off-road emission standards. Off-road diesel powered construction equipment greater than 175 horsepower shall meet or exceed Tier 3 offroad emissions standards; • AQ-4 During construction, the off-road equipment, vehicles, and trucks shall not idle more than 5 minutes in any one hour; • AQ-5 The off-road construction equipment drivers shall have proper training in the efficient operation of the equipment, taking into account ways to reduce the hours of operation of the equipment and/or operate the equipment at a lower load factor; • AQ-6 If applicable, pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road; Orange County sanitation District October 2014 Tetra Tech 27 3.0 Air Quality Assessment • AQ-7 If applicable, traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less; and • AQ-S During construction, there shall be carpools, vanpools, and/or shuttles provided for construction employees. 4. REFERENCES Area Designations. Available at www.ub.ca.gov/desig/desig.httn Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland. February. South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). 1993. California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook. SCAQMD. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Chapter 6 (Determining the Air Quality Significance of a Project),April 1993. SCAQMD. 2005. Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401 and 212, Version 7,July 1, 2005. http://www.agmd.gov/home/permits/risk-msessment/risk-assessment-procedures-for- rules-1401-and-212 SCAQMD. 2008. LST Methodology. Access at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-1st-methodology- document.pdf?sfvrsn 2. SCAQMD. Rule 403, httr)://www.aamd.eov/mles/regJrep,04/r4O3.r)df IPCC. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change and CEQA, Presentation to the Climate Action Team, Cynthia Bryant, Director, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, September 19,2007. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2007. Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Proposed Regulation for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32). Planning and Technical Support Division Emission Inventory Branch, October 19, 2007. Orange County sanitation District October 2014 Tetra Tech 28 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements Project, Reach B Air Quality and GHG Report APPENDIX A CALEEMOD OUTPUT FILES Orange county sanitation District October 2014 Tetra Tech 29 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/17/2014 Gisler-Red Hill South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Wnd Uses Size Metric General Light Industry w 65.34 1000sgft 12 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed lmis) 2.2 1.1tlllty6ompany Southern California Edison Climate Zane 11 Precipitation Freq(Days) 31 1.3 User Entered Comments Project Characteristics- Land Use- Construction Phase-Sewer Improvements 6/22/15 to 9/6/15 Manhole Rehabilitation 6122/15 to 7/22/15 New Trunk Sewer 312/15 to 5/2116 Paving 513116 to 6/3116 Off-road Equipment- 1 Tractors/Loadefs/Backhoes(75 hp), 1 Dump Trucks(65 hp),2 Other Qquipment(Tool Trucks) (190 hp) Off-road Equipment-2 Excavators(157 hp), 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(75 hp), 1 From End Loader(125 hp),4 Dump Trucks(65 hp),4 Other Qquipment(Tool Trucks) (190 hp) 1 of 23 Off-road Equipment-. Off-road Equipment- 1 Street Sweeper(80 hp), 1 Paver (125 hp), 1 Roller(162 hp), 1 Tractors/Loadem/Backhoes(108 hp), 1 Grinder/Crushing Equipment(85 hp),4 Other Oquipment(Tool Trucks) (190 hp) Off-road Equipment- 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp), 1 Excavators(157 hp), 2 Dump Trucks(65 hp), 2 Other Oquipment(Tool Trucks) (190 hp) Trips and VMT- 10 workers/day On-road Fugitive Dust-40 mph, 90% paved Consumer Products-Not reporting operational uses Area Coating- Vehicle Trips-Not reporting operational Energy Use-Not reporting operational Water And Wastewater-Not reporting operational uses Solid Waste-Not reporting operational uses 2.0 Emissions Summary 2 of 23 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG I NOx CO 502 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bio-CO2 NBio- Tobl CO2 CHI WO CO2e PM10 PM10 TOWI PM PM2.5 TOfel CO2 Yee. tonsNr Mwo W15 t 0.70 578 3.23 0.01 5.55 0.23 T.09 E O.W 1 023 1 091 V 0.00 a )94.52 i )94.52 i 0.06 0.00 i 79572 ...........20.18...........�. 0..........i................3.................i.................i.................i...................................... ..........1.............. 4................ ��f��....... ��f��............. D,D 58 .5) 59 .5] 0. 4 0. 0 58042.50 9.92 2. 8 0.01 5.02 0.17 5.18 Te4el 1.20 9.70 5.62 0.02 11.68 OM 12.27 1.19 D.40 1.0 D.00 1,379.09 1,379.09 0.10 0.00 1,381.14 Mitigated Construction ROG I NOx CO 502 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 1 Bio-CO2 NBio- TwACO2 CHI I N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 T.WI PM 2.5 PM2.5 TOfel CO2 Year tonsNr MT/yr 2015 t 0.70 l 5.78 3.23 0.01 0.00 0.23 0.24 ODO 023 023 0.00 a )94.52 i )94.52 i 0.06 0.00 i ]95.]2 ...........2018........... ....0.50 i ............i..................i.................i.................i......................................................i. i ......,.... ..........+ ....... , , � .... 392 239 001 00 D9 01] 00 00 58 ,5] 55457 004 000 55542 Tool 1.20 j 9.70 j 5.62 j 0.02 j 0.00 j D, D.41 j D.00 D.40 D.40 r 0.00 j 1,379.09 j 1,379.09 0.10 0.00 1,351.10 3 of 23 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NO. CO 502 Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bil CO2 Nec- Total CO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 tonsi Mi Nd I 0.31 0.00 D.00 0.M om D.00 D.oD D.oD I 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 0.00 OAO .............................. ................i................3.................i.................i.................i...................................i.. ....... ...�...... Energy I 0.00 ... .....i.................i....... ........... 0.00 ? 0.00 ? 0.00 ? ? 0.00 ? O.OD D.OD ? D.OD ? 0.00 ? 0.00 ? 0.00 ? 0.00 Moeile o.aD o.DD o.aD D.aD D.oD D.DD D.DD D.DD D.DD D.DD D.oD i D.ro i D.DD i o.ao o.ao o.DD ...........wa. ro..........tI................i................ .................i.................i.................i.................i....................... ............................. ....... . ......... . ..................................... ,..... . ...,..... . _..,..... _..,..... _.. D. D D.o ` Do oo oa oo o. o o. o i ..............................t................;................;.....................................................;.................:................. ....... ............. + ..............._ D...... _ ...... _ ...... _ ........... water amDMDMDM ooD D.oD D.DD 0,00 0,00 0,00 Ti M • 0.31 0,00 0.00 0.00 D.00 � D.00 � D.00 � D.00 � D.W � DA0 0.00 � D.DO � 0.00 � 0.00 � 0.00 � D.W 4 of 23 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NO. CO 502 Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bil CO2 Neo- Total CO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 ME Total 002 tonsi Ml R•ae ; 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 om o.00 o.oD o.oD ; 0.00 a o.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 0.00 OAo ..............................t................i................ .................i.................i.................i...................................i.. ....... ......... Energy 0.00 ... .....i.................i....... ........... 0.00 ? 0.00 ? 0.00 ? ? 0.00 ? O.OD D.OD ? D.OD ? 0.00 ? 0.00 ? 0.00 ? 0.00 ..............................r....0........_:.....0..........;.....0........._:.....0........._:.....0........._:.....0........._,..............._,.....3........._,..............._[................ .............._:................;.....O..........;.....0..........;.....0..........;.....0.......... Moeile o.ao o.00 o.ao o.ao o.00 o.00 o.00 o.00 3.00 3.00 o.00 i o.ro i o.Do i o.ao o.ao o.00 ..............................t................i................ .................i.................i.................i.................i.. ....... ........................i..... .....i....... wa.ro i D.aD ': D.oD `: `: D.W....�.....o.00 o.ao....1.....o.ao...,.....o.ao...,.....o.00_..,.....o.00_..,.....o.00_.. i .............................. r...............;...................................................................;................:.....3..00 ....... ...0..0... ...........+.............._;............. _ D...... _ ........ _ ........ _ ...... .......... water D.oD o.00 0 000 ooD o.Do o.DD o.00 o.00 o.00 Ti M • 0.31 0,00 0.00 0.00 D.00 D.00 D.W D.W D.W D.W 0.00 0.00 0.07 j 0.00 j 0.00 j D.w 3.0 Construction Detail 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 5 of 23 3.2 New Trunk Sewer -2015 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO S02 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM25 1 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CM N20 CO2a PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Tofal CO2 Category tonsi MTlyr Off Road ; 0.68 570 2.97 0.01 0.23 0.23 D.23 1 D.23 a 0.00 74614 i 74614 i 0.05 0.00 i ]4].28 Total r 0.68 5.70 2.97 0.01 M3 DM D.23 D.23 D.W 748.16 748.14 0.05 0.00 ]{].28 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM .5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CHI N20 002a PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 category tonetyr MT/yr Hauling ; 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 i D.00 i D.00 i DW i DW i DM i 000 ; 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 ..............................t................................ ............................................................................................. ....."..................... - - - - .........i.................i........... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... Ventlor ; 0.01 .... .....D.Ds D.a4 D.DD D.31 D.DD D.31 D.m D.oD D.o3 r D.ro 9.2z 9.22 D.Do�� D.Do�� 9.zz.... ..............................t................i................ .................i.................i.................i.....................................................i.................i.. ...t..... worker ; 0.02 ...........i 0.02 0.22 0.00 B. 0.00 8.55 D.85 D.00 [ D.85 ; D,OD i....38,19..a....38,19..a.....0.00...a.....0.00..3...38,22... T0181 r 0.03 j 0.08 j 0.26 j 0.00 j 8.88 j 0.00 j 8.88 j D.88 j D.DD j DO r DIM j ".39 j 0.39 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.M ja 6 of 23 3.2 New Trunk Sewer -2015 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM25 1 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Tofel CO2 Category tonsi MTlyr Off-Road t 0.68 5]0 2.97 0.01 0.23 0.23 D.23 D.23 a 0.00 74614 i 74614 i 0.05 0.00 i ]4].28 Total r 0.68 5.70 2.97 0.01 M3 DM D.23 D.23 D.W 748.16 748.14 0.05 0.00 ]{].28 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 1 Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fug tiv I Exhaust I PM2.5 1 Bio-CO2 I NBio- Toler CO2 CIM I N20 1 002a PM10 PM10 Total PM 2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tonetyr MT/yr Hauling ; 0,00 a 0,00 a O.OD a 0.00 i O.00 i O.00 i OW i DW i DM i 000 1 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0,00 ..............................t................................ ............................................................................................. ....."..................... - - - - .........i.................i........... 9.22 9..22 ....... ....... 9..22 Ventlor ; 0.01 .... .....D.Ds D.a4 D.DD D.aD D.DD D.OD D.OD D.oD D.oD r D.ro 9.2z 9.zz D.Do... .....D.DD... .....9.zz.... ..............................t................i................ .................i.................i.................i.....................................................i.................i.. ...t..... woner p o.02 ...........i 0.02 0.22 0.00 O.OD O.00 0.00 D.00 D.00 [ D.00 i D,OD �....38,17..a....38,17..a.....0.00...a.....0.00..3...38,22... T91e1 r 0.03 j 0.08 j 0.26 j 0.00 j D.00 j D.00 j D.00 j D.00 i D.OD j D.OD r DIM j ".39 j 0.39 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.M ja 7 of 23 3.2 New Trunk Sewer -2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG I NDx CO S02 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM25 1 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Pli5 Total CO2 Category tonsi Mi OH-Roatl ; 0.25 2.02 1.17 0.00 0.08 008 D.09 D.09 a 0.00 296.41 i 29B.41 i 0.02 0.00 i 296.63 Total r 0.25 2.02 1.17 IN IN IN IN IN r IN � 296.41 � 296.41 � 0.02 0.00 � 296.63 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CIM N20 002a PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tonetyr Pill Hauling ; 0.00 a 0.00 a O.OD a 0.00 i D.00 i D.00 i DM i DW i DM i 000 ; 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 i 0.00 'e 0.00 i 0.00 ..............................t................................ ............................................................................................. .....a...................... - - - - .........i.................i........... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ve�mr ; D.DD .... .....D.at D.DD D.1z D.aD D.1z D.at D.oD D.ot D.ro 3.BB 3.66 D.DD... .....o.eo... .....a.se.... ..............................t................i................ .................i.................i.................i.....................................................i.................i.. ...}..... woner ; D.01 ...........i 0.01 0.06 0.00 2.80 D. 3.0D D.28 D.00 [ D.28 ; D,OD.....i2.....1.5...W.......4.....1.5...W.......4.....0....0..0.. ...4 .....0.00...4 ....15.32... T0161 r 0.01 j 0.03 j 0.09 j ON j 2.72 j 0.00 j 272 j D.P � IN j D.P r IN j 16.96 j 16.96 j 0.00 j 0.00 j I9.00 ja 8 of 23 3.2 New Trunk Sewer -2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM25 1 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 Pli5 Total CO2 Category tonsi Mi Off-Road t 0.25 2.02 1.11 0.00 0.08 008 D.OB D.OB a 0.00 2%,41 i 29B.41 i 0.02 0.00 i 296.B3 Total r 0.25 2.02 1.17 IN IN IN IN IN r IN � 296.41 � 296.41 � 0.02 0.00 � 296.63 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 1 Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fugtiv I Exhaust I PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 I N20 1 002a PM10 PM10 Total PM 2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tonetyr Pill Hauling ; 0,00 a 0,00 a O.OD a 0.00 i O.00 i O.00 i D,W i DW i DM i 000 1 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0,00 ..............................t................................ ............................................................................................. .....a...................... - - - - ve�mr D.DD .... .....D.D1 D.DD D.aD D.DD D.DD D.DD D.DD D.DD D.ro 3.BB 3.66 D.Do... .....B.Bo... .....5.se.... ..............................t................i................ .................i.................i.................i.....................................................i.................i.. ...}..... worker ; 0.01 ...........i 0.01 0.06 O. D. O.00 0.00 D.00 D.00 [ D.00 i D,OD t....1530..1....1530..1.....0.00...4 .....0.00...4 ....15.32... T0161 r 0.01 j 0.03 j 0.09 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j IN j IN j D.00 r IN j 16.9a j 16.9a j 0.00 j 0.00 j I9.00 ja 9 of 23 3.3 Sewer Improvements -2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NDx CO 502 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM25 1 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CM N20 CO2a Palo PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Tofal CO2 Category tonsi MTlyr OR-Road ; 0.11 0,86 0.51 0.00 ON 0.04 D.04 1 D.04 0.00 123.38 i 123.38 i 0.01 0.00 i 123.57 Total r 0.11 0.86 0.51 0.00 0.114, D.04 Da" D.W r D,M 123.38 Inge 0.01 0.00 123.5T Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM .5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CIM N20 002a PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tonetyr Pill Hauling ; 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 i D.00 i D.00 i DW i DW i DM i 000 ; OW a OW i 0.00 'e 0.00 'e 0.00 i 0.00 ..............................t................................ ............................................................................................. .....a...................... - - - - .........i.................i........... ...... ...... ....... ....... ...... ve�mr ; o.DO ..... .....D.01 D.aO D.aB D.DD D.w D.01 D.oD D.o1 D.ro z.41 i 2.41 i D.DD�� D.DD�� z.si�� ..............................t................i................ .................i.................i.................i.....................................................i.................i................t..... woner ; D.Do ...........0.00 0.03 DAD IM D.W 1.02 0.10 D.OD D.10 ; D.00 i.....8.01....;.....6.01....;.....o.00...;.....0.00...;.....Oil... Teb1 r 0.00 i 0.01 i 0." i Dum i 1.10 i DAD i 1.10 i 0.11 D.W j D.11 r DW j 1.42 j 8.92 D.00 D.00 B.N 10 of 23 3.3 Sewer Improvements -2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM25 1 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 CM N20 CO2e Palo PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Tofel CO2 Category tonsi MTlyr C0-Road 1 0.11 0.86 0.51 0.00 ON 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 123.38 i 123.38 i 0.01 0.00 i 123.57 Total r 0.11 0.86 0.51 0.00 0.114, D.04 Da" D.W r D,M 123.30 123.30 0.01 0.00 123.A Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 1 Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fug tiv I Exhaust I PM2.5 1 Bio-CO2 I NBs, Total CO2 CH4 I N20 1 002a PM10 PM10 Total PM 2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 Category tonetyr Pill Hauling 1 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i DM i DW i DM i 000 1 0.00 a 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 'e 0.00 i 0.00 ..............................t................................ ............................................................................................. .....a...................... - - - ve�mr D.DD ..... .....0.01 D.DD D.aD D.DD D.DD D.DD D.DD D.DD D.ro z.41 i z.41 i D.Do... .....D.DD... .....z.si.... ..............................t................i................ .................i.................i.................i.....................................................i.................i................t..... woner D.00 ........... O.OD 0.03 0.00 O.OD O.OD 0.00 D.OD D.00 D.00 ; D.00 i.....6.01....;.....6.01....;.....0.00...4 .....0.00...4 .....e.02... Teb1 r 0.00 j 0.01 j D.04 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j D.00 i D.OD j D.OD r D.00 j 1.42 j Ill j 0.00 j 0.00 j 8.0 11 of 23 3.4 Manhole Rehabilitation -2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO 502 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM25 1 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 OH4 N20 CO2a Palo PM10 Total PM2.5 ME Tofal CO2 Category tonsi Pill OR-Roa0 ; 0.02 0.20 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01 D.01 1 D.01 0.00 28.91 i 28.91 i 0.00 0.00 i 28.% Total r 0.02 0.20 0.09 0.00 0.01 D.01 D.01 D.01 D.W 28.91 28.91 0.00 0.00 28.93 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 802 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- Telal CO2 CH4 N20 002a PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tonslyr MT/yr Hauling ; 0.00 a 0.00 a O.OD a O.OD i O.00 i O.00 i DW i DW i 0W i 000 ; 0.00 a 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 'e 0.00 i 0.00 ..........Vn..tlo..r..........t;....O. ...."..................... ....-..... - ...-................ .... ...- ..... ...D 0.01 D D DDD D.DD D.DD D.ro D.w 0.97 D.Do D.DD D.9TD.a D.a D.a3 DDD D.m ..............................t................i................ .................i.................i.................i.....................................................i.................i.. ...t..... woner ; D.Do ...........0.00 0.01 O. 0.3D O.OD D.30 D.03 D.00 D.OS ; D.OD i.....I.TS...a.....I.TS...a.....0....0..0...... ....0.00...a.....0.00...a.....f.TS... Till l r 0.00 j 0.01 j 0.01 j ON j DA3 j 0.00 j 0.33 j D.03 j D.00 j D.0 r DAO j 2.72 j 2.72 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 2.72 12 of 23 3.4 Manhole Rehabilitation -2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO I 502 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM25 1 Bio-CO2 NBio- I Total CO2 OH4 N20 CO2e Palo PM10 Total PM2.5 ME Tofal CO2 Category tonsi Pill Off-Road 1 0.02 0.20 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01 D.01 1 D.01 0.00 28.91 i 28.91 i 0.00 0.00 i 28.% Total r 0.02 0.20 0.09 0.00 0.01 D.01 D.01 D.01 D.W 28.91 28.91 0.00 0.00 28.98 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 1 Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fug tiv I Exhaust I PM2.5 1 Bio-CO2 Nast, I Tell CO2 CHI I WO 002a PM10 PM10 Total PM 2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tonagr MTryr Hauling 1 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 a 0.00 i O.00 i O.00 i 000 i DW i 0W i 000 I 0.00 a 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 'e 0.00 a 0.00 ..............................t................................ ............................................................................................. ....."..................... - - - - ve�mr D.DD D.m .... .....D.aD D.aD D.aD D.DD D.DD D.DD D.DD D.DD r D.ro D.w o.9T D.Do... .....D.DD... .....D.9T... ..............................t................i................ .................i.................i.................i.....................................................i.................i.. ...t..... woner D.0o ........... ........... D.Do D.a1 o.ao D.00 D.00 D.00 D.00 D.ao D.00 D.ao '.....i.is...'.....i.is...'.....o.00...'.....o.00...'.....i.ia... Tebl r 0.00 j 0.01 j 0.01 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 0.00 j D.00 j D.00 j D.00 r D.00 j 2.72 j 2.72 j 0.00 j 0.00 j 2.72 13 of 23 3.5 Paving -2016 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NO CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 tonsi Mi Oft a 1 0.10 0.78 0.4 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 i 0.00 a 99.84 i 99.84 i 0.01 4 0.00 i 100.01 .............................. ................I................i.................i.................i.................i...................................i.. ....... ...{........ .....i................. Paving . cum i e e e i O.OD ? O.OD ? ? D.00 !..._D.00 i D,W....p.._D,W.........0,D0...a.....O,OD_..a..._O.OD_..a.....O.00..... To I r 0.10 j 0.78 j B." j D.W j D.00 D.DI D.M D.M r 0.00 j 99.84 j 99.84 j 0.01 j 0.00 j 100.01 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG I NOx 00 502 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 1 Bio-CO2 NBio- TotWCO2 CHI N20 CO2e P1,110 PM10 Total PM 2.5 PM2.5 Tofel CO2 Category tons w4i, Hauling 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.00 E 0.00 DW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 .............................. ................i................3.................i.................i.................i...................................... ...{....................i................. ....... ..... ...... . .... ...... ....... ...... venaer p o.00 0.01 o.ao D.ao ON D.oD D.M D.00 D.ao D.ao o,ao....1.....1,as...'.....i,os...'.....o,00...'.....o.00_..'.....i.oe.... .............................. F................e.....0.......... .................i.................i.................i.................i.................i.................e....... ......}...................... - - - - ..........i.......... ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... wo:ker o.00 .... .....o.00 i o.DD i D.ao i D.az i D.ao i D.az i D.oe D.oO D.m D.ro i I.BI I.Ba o.00... .....D.Do... .....s.aa... Ta I r 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 D.98 D.00 D.BB D.DB D.DD D.DB IN 5.90 5.90 0.00 MIX IIM 14 of 23 3.5 Paving -2016 Mitigated Construction On-Site ROG NO CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bio-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 OH4 we CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 FINE Tofel CO2 tonsi Mi 0111'Rood 1 0.10 0.78 0.44 ODO 0.04 0.04 0.04 I 0.04 I 0.00 i 99.84 i 99.84 i 0.01 4 0.00 i 100.01 .............................. ................i................i.................i.................i.................i...................................i.. ....... ...{........ .....i................. Paving 1 0.00 i e e e i O.OD ? O.OD ? ? D.00 !..._D.00 I D,W....p.._D,W.........0,D0...a.....0,00_..a..._O.OD_..a.....O.00..... To I r 0.10 j 0.78 j B.44 j D.DO j D.00 DD4 11.04 11.04 r 0.00 j 99.84 j 99.84 j 0.01 j 0.00 j 100.01 Mitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO 502 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fugitive Exhaust P142.5 1 Bio-CO2 NBio- TeACO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Puto PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Tofel CO2 Category tons w4i, Hauling 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 E 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 4 0.00 4 0.00 4 0.00 .............................. ................i................3.................i.................i.................i...................................... ...{....................i................. ....... ..... ...... . .... ...... ....... ...... venaer p o.00 0.01 o.ao D.ao D.oD D.oD D.00 D.oD D.ao D.ao o,ao....1.....1,as...'.....i,os...'.....o,00...'.....o.00_..'.....i.oe.... .............................. F................I................ .................i.................i.................i.................i.................i.................e....... ......}...................... - - - - ..........i.......... ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... wo:ker o.Do .... .....o.Do i o.DD i D.ao i D.ao i D.ao i D.Do i D.00 D.oD D.oD D.ro i s.eb s.eb o.DD... .....D.DD... .....s.aa... Taal r 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.0 IN IN D.DO D.DO DAD DAD DIM 5.90 5.90 0.00 111.00 5.80 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 15 of 23 ROG NOx CO I 502 I Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM25 Bio-0O2 NBio- Total CO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM25 PM25 Total CO2 Category tonsi Wry, Mitigated 1 0.00 ? 0.00 ? DOD ? DOD ? 000 ? DOD ? DDD ? DDD DOD DOD ; DW ? DW ? 0.00 ? 0,00 ? 0,00 ? 0.W I I I ..............................a.................................;..............._:..............._:.....0...... 0...... ....... ...............................................+.............._:................;................;................;................;.....0.......... umm�igatea O.Oo O.Oo O.aO O.aO O.DO O.DO O.oO O.oO DOD DOD O.ao O.ao 000 0,00 0,00 O.Oo rotas NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA say taA NA as, NA NA NA 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual WIT Annual VMT General Light Industry I 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 D.00 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip Land Use H-W Or C-W H-3or C-C H-Oor C-NW I H-W or C.W H-S or C-C H-Oor C-NW General Light Industry 16.60 S40 6.90 59.00 280D 13.00 5.0 Energy Detail 16 of 23 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NO. CO 502 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bic-CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2S PMi TOtaI CO2 tonsryr M ry Ela icily DDU D.DD D.W DACID I D00 a DOD a J,W a 0,00 0.00 0,00 Mitigated • :................?................e................e................e.....�................ .........._e.....D...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... _................_ O...... _ 0...... _ O........._:..... ........... ElevYriciry D.DD D.DD D.DD D.DD D.DD D.DD D.DD o.ao o.ao D.00 ................ ....... ...........i........... ......... ............ .. ............ .. ............... Nwistr D.O D.a D.a D.D D.o D.D D.D D.D D.D D. o D. oD.DD 0.100 D. o Mi0gatetl ............................_ .............................................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... .......:............ NaturalGas � 0.00 0.00 0.00 ? D.OD ? ? 0.00 D.OD ............D.00....�.....D.OD...�....D,......00....�.....D,......00._d.....0,....00.-d.....0.00......._-q.....0.00.......__q.....0.00......._.. Unmitigmed Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA M NA M m m m M M NA 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGas Use ROG I NOx CO 502 Fugiti Exhaust PMiD Fugiti a Exhaust PM2.5 Na-CO2 NBio- TOWICO2 Cl6 N20 CO2e PM,0 PMtU Total PM2.5 PM2-5 Total CO2 LnMUse kBTU tonslyr MTlyr General Light ? 0 I 0.00 0.00 0.00 ? 0.00 ! ? 0,00 ? 0.00 [ ? 0,00 ? 0,00 D00 ? D00 ? D00 ? D00 D00 D00 Industry Total D.00 11.00 D.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.0 � 0.00 � D.DD � DOD � D.00 1 DAN 17 of 23 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitioated NaturalGas Use RCG NCx CO BC2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive ExM1aust PM25 Bb-CO2 NBiP- TotaICO2 CHI N2O CO2e PM10 PMUD Tolal PM2.5 PM2.5 TWaI CO2 Land Use kBTU tonstyr Mi General Light i 0 w 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OM i OM 0.00 i DM 0.00 0.00 Industry Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 0.00 om 0.00 0.00 r o.00 0.0o MW 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated ElesincXy Use ROG I NOx CO BC2 I Total CO2 CHI I 2O I CO2e Land USe kMh tonstyr MIMI General Light e 0 V 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Industry .7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18 of 23 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated Eledricky Use ROO Near CO 502 Total Co, Cm N20 CO2e Land Use kWh mney- General Light i 0 v 0.00 0.00 000 070 Indust" rout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG N07 00 S02 I Fugitive I E.houst I PM10 I F,gtiv I Exhaust I PM25 Bio-CO2 Wio- Total CO2 cm N20 002a PM10 PM10 Total PM 2.5 PM25 Total CO2 Category tonal, EIT/yr Mitigated 051 i 0.00 i 0.00 i 0.00 i [ 000 i O.OD i D.W D.IW I OW i OW i OW i 0,00 i 0,00 i 0.00 ..............................j.................e..................................e...................................e.................................... ............ ......I....................... _ _ _ Unmitigatetl 0.31 .....i.................i...... 0.00 0.a0 o.w 01 D.DO i D.oD D.oD O.ao O.ao �.....0.ao...;.....0.00_.. .....0.00_.. .....o.ao_.. rotat NA Nty NA NA NA Nty Nty Pity m Xty Pity Pity Pity Pity Pity Pity 19 of 23 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unrnitiaated ROG NOx CO I 502 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM10 I Fugitive I Exhaust I PM25 1 Bio-CO2 NBio- Tob10G2 CM N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 BuWMWory tonsi MTlyr Architectural f 0.08 O.00 0.00 D.00 D.OU ; 0W a DAO a 0.00 a 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating t ...............:................a..............._:..............._:................................._........................................i....... ..........:...... Con. f 0.24 e e e e e 0.00 a O.OD i i DMi D.OD...�....UOD..........O.oD.........0.00.........0.00_ ..._....0.00_ ..._....0.00_.. ......_ProEutla.........................i................i.................i.................i.................i....................................... ....... ....}...... 7 0.00 .. .....i....... taMscapng j 0.00 ..........i.......e 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 000 i 00D ; D,ao....'.....o.ao...•.....o.ao...•.....o.00... .....o.00... .....o.00_.. Till r 0.02 j 0.00 j 0.00 j MIX j � 0.00 j D.00 j � 0.00 j IM r IN I IN 1 0.00 Mlhaated ROG 1407 CO 1 502 I Fugitive I Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-CO2 NBio- TOta1002 CM I N20 I CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM25 PM25 Total CO2 BuECateDory tons MTlyr Architectural 7 0.08 e e O.w a 000 ! ! 000 i D.00 0.00 0.00 a 0.00 a 0,00 a 0,00 a 0.00 Coating ............................_ ................i................ .............................................. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ............:..... .....i..... .....:..... wnsutnx ; o.z4 i i D.aD ....�....D.oD D.DD D.DD D.ro uro D.DD o.Do o.Do o.DD Prctluda f �...............e................a..............._:................:................e............ ....... ....... ....... D..... ....... ........ _ ........ _ ........ _ ...... _ O........._:..... taMacagn9 i 0.00 a 0.00 a O.OD a 0.00 e e 0.00 a D.OD i ...........DOD.........O.OD........D.oD..........D.OD...._...0.00...._...0.00 .. .....0.00_.. .....0.00_.. Total r 0.32 1 IN I 0.00 j 0.00 j j D.aO j D.00 j j 0.00 j 0.410 1 0.00 1 DIM I O.00 1 0.00 1 0.00 1 IN 7.0 Water Detail 20 of 23 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water ROG NO. I CO I GO2 TOWICO2 CM I N2O I COle Category tons/yr MTNr Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 e e i i e ..............................t.................:................a.................r.................r.................r.................i.................i................. UeT tioa zd 0.00 ? O.Op ? 0.00 D.OU Total NA I NA NA j NA j NA j NA NA j M 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated IMoar'00door Roc I NOx CO I GO2 TOWICO2 CM I N2O I CO2a J. lanAllse Mgal Wnsi Ni General Light i 010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Intluatte Tofel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 of 23 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Ind..MOutdoor ROG NOx I CO 502 Total CO2 OH4 N20 O02e Use blld Lbe MOW tonstyr General Light a 010 0.00 0.00 om 0.00 Industry Tom 000 0.00 om 0.00 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CateaomlYear FOG NOx I Go 502 Total CO2 OF4 N20 GOle tonsryr MTlyr Mitigated 000 000 000 000 ................ _.......... ................i.................e.................e.................i..................... ..................................... D00D00 unmet area o.00 o.00 o.00 o.00....� Total m m m NA NA m NN m 22 of 23 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste ROG NOx CO 502 Tobl CO2 CMN20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons mnstyr General Light e 0 v 0.00 0.00 0A0 0.00 Intlustry rotas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated Waft ROM NOx CO EM Total CO2 CHI NZO CO2e Disposed Lard Use tom mnstyr M9yr General Light e 0 v 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Intlustry rent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.0 Vegetation 23 of 23 Gisler-Red Hill System Improvements,Reach B Appentlir B APPENDIX B BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES LETTER REPORT October 2,2014 %FEM Emilie Johnson,Principal Environmental Planner TETRA TECH 17885 Von Karman, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614-6213 Re: BIOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS FOR GISLER-RED HILL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS,REACH B Dear Ms. Johnson: This report serves to document the findings and conclusions of our review and field study of biological resources associated with the project area for the Gisler - Red Hill System Improvements, Reach B, between Warner Avenue and Edinger Avenue where project implementation is planned to extend into unpaved area not previously addressed in prior environmental documentation. At your request, PCR conducted a review of the project plans and inspected the Draft and Final Program Environmental Impact Reports (EIR and FEIR [Environmental Science Associates, June and October, 1999]) for the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD) 1999 Strategic Plan. On September 18, 2014, a PCR biologist conducted a pedestrian survey of the area on the southeast side of Red Hill Avenue to observe and characterize the existing conditions and evaluate the potential for plants and wildlife to occur in the area potentially affected by the planned wastewater system improvements. Project Description This project will upsize approximately 4,900 linear feet of Trunk sewer between Edinger Avenue and Wamer Avenue to increase capacity; abandon the replaced portion of the Trunk sewer between Edinger Avenue and Warner Avenue once all new sewers and manholes have been completed; repair portions of the Trunk and Interceptor sewers with a cured-in-place plastic pipe; and rehabilitate or replace existing Trunk and Interceptor manholes between Mitchell Avenue and McGaw Avenue. Ancillary project elements involve: improvements to diversion structures at the intersections of Mitchell Avenue and Newport Avenue, and Mitchell Avenue and Red Hill Avenue; and other rehabilitation work to be performed at these intersections as well as at Red Hill Avenue and Edinger Avenue. These intersections are located in completely developed urban areas with virtually no landscaping. The planned work in these locations would not affect biological resources since no biological resources exist in these specific work areas. For the purpose of this study, it is understood that the major project work associated with Trunk sewer construction will occur within the right-of-way of Red Hill Avenue. The proposed method of construction for the new Trunk sewer is open trench construction to a depth of approximately 20 feet. The cured-in-place rehabilitation is a trenchless repair that does not require excavation. Based on PCR's inspection of the plan exhibits for the project, the work would include 2121 Alton Parkway, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92606 INTERNET www.pornetoom TEL 949.753.7001 FAX 949.753.7002 Emilie Johnson,Principal Environmental Planner = TETRA TECH October 2,2014-Page 2 disturbance or removal of landscape shrubs and trees located on the southeast side of existing road surface and curb. Completion of the project will ultimately widen the road footprint of Red Hill Avenue by up to approximately 20' on the southeast side of the existing southeastern curb. Field Survey Results PCR reviewed the Trunk sewer project plans for the alignment along Red Hill from Warner to Edinger overlaid on a recent aerial photograph to determine whether any biological resources may occur in the project area and vicinity. This review identified areas containing patches of vegetation presumed to be landscaping consisting of ornamental shrubs, trees, and some groundcover along the southeast side of Red Hill Avenue. On September 18, 2014, PCR biologist Bob Huttar performed a pedestrian survey and characterized the subject area as follows. Land use on the northwest side of Red Hill Avenue consists of commercial and light industrial and there are patches and strips of landscaping along some sections of the street frontage. There are no significant open space areas or naturally vegetated areas on the northwest side of Red Hill that may support any significant biological resources. Moreover, the planned activities associated with the Trunk sewer construction would not cause any substantial disturbance on that side of the roadway. On the southeast side of Red Hill (from Warner to Edinger), land use is a mix of commercial and educational facilities, along with the Orange County Rescue Mission, and a nearly vacant area from opposite Warner Avenue to Perry Drive. Red Hill Avenue is subject to a high volume of traffic during the day,particularly during the morning and evening commuting hours. The area where the project would require ground disturbance of an unpaved area lies within a narrow strip along the southeast side of existing Red Hill Avenue. The section between Edinger and Valencia Avenues is covered by ornamental, mostly non-native, vegetation which is regularly maintained. The vegetation is comprised of a variety of groomed grass lawns, low groundcovers, shrubs, hedges, and ornamental trees including short trees such as carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides) and jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia), generally less than 10 feet in height, and some taller trees including lemon scented eucalyptus (Corymbia citriodora), Aleppo pine (Pinus halapensis), and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), which may exceed 60 feet in height. In this segment along Red Hill, the trees appear to be regularly pruned and exhibit fairly sparse, open canopies. However, the section along the southeast side of Red Hill from Valencia Avenue to Warner Avenue does not appear to be maintained regularly. Ground cover is generally lacking or has been neglected. Many trees also occur in this section such as carrotwood, Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle),juniper(Juniperus sp.), and lemon scented eucalyptus. In general,the tree canopies are more dense than the section to the north (from Valencia to Edinger), because the area is not subject to regular maintenance. Emilie Johnson,Principal Environmental Planner TETRA TECH October 2,2014-Page 3 No nests were observed during the brief survey effort. However, despite the traffic noise and disturbance along the road, some species of native songbirds that are well adapted to urban areas (e.g., house finch, northern mockingbird, American robin, etc.) may still nest in the landscaped areas, particularly in the more dense shrubs and tree canopies found between Warner and Valencia Avenue. It is less likely, but not impossible that some urban-adapted raptors (birds of prey) such as red-shouldered hawk might nest in a few of the larger denser canopied trees. However, the tall trees in the section between Edinger and Valencia Avenues offer little nesting opportunity to raptors because pruning has eliminated much of the concealing foliage. Some of the trees located between Valencia and Warner Avenues are better suited for nesting but it is more likely that raptors would select nest sites in trees located away from the traffic on Red Hill. In summary, although the existing landscape shrubs and trees may offer some limited nest opportunities to urban-adapted avian species, the project area contains no areas of natural vegetation or habitat that could support any special status species of wildlife or plants. The project area is highly developed and situated in a densely populated urban area and no significant biological resources are known or expected to occur in the project area or immediate vicinity. Relevant EIR Comment and Mitigation Measure Notably, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service submitted comments in response to the Draft EIR for the OCSD 1999 Strategic Plan that recognized the potential for the project to impact nesting birds, even in highly urbanized areas, stating, as part of Comment 11, in their letter: "Even in highly urbanized areas, flood control channels can sustain wetlands and provide habitat for wildlife. Direct impacts to habitats should be avoided and minimized and appropriate measures should be taken to mitigate any unavoidable significant impacts. Also, in areas with the potential for nesting birds (e.g., trees present), construction should be conducted outside of the nesting season. Alternately, a biological monitor should survey prior to, and/or during, construction to ensure that no nests are disturbed or removed as a result of the project." The project area contains no flood control channels or wetlands, but there are sizable trees and shrubs that could provide nesting habitat, at least for a few native species. It is important to recognize that while an activity that results in the loss of a nest of a relatively common bird species should not be considered a significant impact to biological resources under CEQA, it would still be a violation of both the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)and the California Fish and Game Code. The response to this U.S. Fish and Wildlife comment in the Final EIR noted that "mitigation measure 7.3-1 states that construction projects that could impact undeveloped areas or open space would require additional biological surveys and impact assessments. This would include the removal of trees along construction corridors within the Service Area." Specifically, the referenced mitigation measure stipulates that: Measure 7.3-1: Additional CEQA Review. If in the future, as OCSD develops the design of each specific collection system project for implementation,a project alignment includes Emilie Johnson,Principal Environmental Planner TETRA TECH October 2,2014-Page 4 unpaved, undeveloped park or open space area, OCSD will conduct additional CEQA review as needed to clarify and address potential impacts to biological resources. While the area in question is not recognized specifically as a park or "open space", it does contain trees that may provide nesting opportunities and thus warrants some consideration with regard to the project's potential to impact resources. Therefore, this study, as described herein, fulfills the requirement for a supplemental biological survey and will support the additional CEQA review requirement established by the mitigation measure. The conclusions provided below are intended to clarify and address this project's potential impacts. Conclusions The Gisler—Red Hill System Improvements, Reach B project will encroach into the existing landscaped area immediately adjacent to the existing paved road surface on the southeast side of Red Hill Avenue. Construction will require removal of some of the existing trees and shrubs. Since some of the trees and shrubs that will be removed could be used as nest sites by native bird species that are adapted to living in urban areas,the potential exists for the project to result in direct impacts to nesting birds if vegetation is removed while birds are actively nesting. Such impacts would not be considered biologically significant since the potentially affected species are not considered rare or endangered. Nevertheless, such potential loss would be avoided by maintaining compliance with existing State and federal regulations protecting nearly all native bird species. Recommendations No specific mitigation or monitoring would be necessitated by the CEQA mitigation measure stipulated in the Final EIR other than the analysis conducted by and for the project contained herein. However, in order to maintain compliance with the State Fish and Game Code and the federal MBTA, it is recommended that the project include a provision to: Remove the vegetation within the project footprint (i.e., "clear and grub") between August 31 and March 1; If the recommendation above cannot or will not be possible or practical, then the following alternate measure would be recommended: • Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist not more than 7 days and preferably within 3 days prior to initiating clearing and grubbing activities if such activities must be performed during the nesting season (assumed to last from March 1 to August 31). If surveys identify early nesting activities (e.g., nest building, territory protection behavior) or nests, the biologist may contact the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and request authorization to restrict nesting activities if no eggs or Emilie Johnson,Principal Environmental Planner TETRA TECH October 2,2014-Page 5 %FM nestlings are present or, if eggs or nestlings are found, the activity must not disturb the active nest(s)until the young have fledged or the nest is observed to be inactive. If there are any comments or questions regarding the information or recommendations provided in this report,please contact me at(949)753-7001 ext. 2114. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION "�Iww CR Scott Holbrook Principal Biologist