D
ATE: May 19, 2025
TO: Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
FROM: Haseeb Qureshi
Ali Dadabhoy
JOB NO: 14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE AIR QUALITY ,
GREENHOUSE GAS & ENERGY ASSESSMENT
Juan Villalobos,
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Air Quality (AQ), Greenhouse Gas (GHG) & Energy Assessment (EA) for the Glendale -Los Angeles Garden River Bridge (Project), which is generally located north of N. Zoo Drive, in the City of Los Angeles, and south of the intersection of Flower Street and Fairmont Avenue in in the City of Glendale. The proposed residential Project site is located within a commercial area with the nearest existing single-family residential homes approximately 1,360 feet to the northeast. The John Ferraro Athletic Fields, Los Angeles Zoo, and other community resources within Los Angeles are located south of the Project site.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of Glendale as lead agency in cooperation with the City of LA, as responsible agency, proposes the construction of a three-span, curvilinear, landscaped bridge for use by pedestrians and bicyclists, as shown in Exhibit 1. The intent of this multi-community resource is to increase access to Glendale Narrows Riverwalk, and Griffith Park; to improve connections; and to increase the safety of paths used for pedestrians and cyclists. Dedicated access across the Los Angeles River at this key location would improve public safety and accessibility to important community resources by creating a connection between the Cities of Glendale and Los Angeles across the Los Angeles River for pedestrians and cyclists.
The proposed bridge would be concrete with two supporting piers in the Los Angeles River. It would feature extensive landscaping on the approaches, as well as on the bridge itself, and is thus named the “Garden River Bridge.” A number of raised planting beds on the bridge would create dedicated zones for bicycle and pedestrian circulation, shade structures, canopied seating areas, dispersed gathering spaces, and scenic views of the Los Angeles River.
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
The City of Los Angeles owns, operates, and maintains the south side of the Los Angeles River, located within the southern portion of the proposed Project area; also within this area, Southern California Edison (SCE) holds a fifteen-foot easement along Zoo Drive and overhead facilities on Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) poles. On the north bank of the Los Angeles River, parcels within the northern portion of the proposed Project limits are owned by the City of Glendale, the City of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). Furthermore, easements that cross the proposed Project area on the northern side are held by the City of Glendale for utility purposes (e.g., poles, sewers and related structures), and for the existing Riverwalk pedestrian/bike trail.
The proposed Project would include overall temporary impacts of approximately 2.94 acres and approximately 1.4 acres of permanent impacts. Temporary impacts would include water diversion activities, excavation activities, and areas of access and staging. P ermanent impacts would include the bridge, Riverwalk bike path reconstruction adjacent to the bridge, a new connection from the bridge to Zoo Drive, and the realignment of Zoo Drive; see Exhibit 2. The realignment of Zoo Drive would be to permit the construction of stairs and a ramp leading up to the LA River Bike Path and the proposed bridge. Trees between Zoo Drive and the Los Angeles River Bike Path would be removed, and a new curb would be installed as part of proposed street improvements. Additionally, a sidewalk would be installed to facilitate access from the bridge to the John Ferraro Athletic Fields to the south via a new raised crosswalk across Zoo Drive.
Construction is anticipated to begin in the Fall of 2025 and would last approximately 2.5 years, ending in the Spring of 2028. The proposed Project would occur in six (6) phases, and shown and summarized below.
• Phase 0: Mobilization – The initial phase of the proposed Project would include requests for information, preparing and reviewing submittals, and procuring materials. • Phase 1: North Abutment and Approaches – Approach work, bike path work, and abutment work. • Phase 2: Bridge Substructure – Construct bents within the LA River. • Phase 3: South Abutment and Approaches – Construct the south abutment and connections to Zoo Drive; realign Zoo Drive.
• Phae 4: Bridge Superstructure – Construct the bridge superstructure using falsework within the LA River.
• Phase 5: Architectural Elements/Landscaping – Construct the architectural elements (e.g., canopies, landscaping, etc.) on the bridge and approaches.
The bridge abutments would be constructed to be higher than the existing elevation of the channel walls and would not touch the levee walls. The abutments would be supported by deep foundations consisting of cast -in-drilled-hole concrete piles; the abutments would not be supported by the channel walls. In order to address drainage from the bridge deck, pipes would be hung inside of the bridge and tie into existing drainage pipes or water treatment features on both sides of the Los Angeles River channel. Activities associated with the realignment of Zoo Drive would include the removal of trees along the Los Angeles River Bike Path along Zoo Drive, within the southern portion of the proposed Project’s footprint in the City of LA.
The demolition and excavation phases of the proposed Project are expected to generate the most construction traffic and require the most equipment. In-river construction would occur during EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
the dry season (April through October) when flood flows are very unlikely. The construction equipment used during different portions of the proposed Project would include work trucks, concrete trucks, cast-in-drilled-hole concrete pile drilling rigs, mobile cranes, and excavators. The construction contractor would be required to lay down timber mats to protect the Los Angeles River bottom and prevent potential impacts to the Los Angeles River bottom during construction.
While variable, an average of 15 peop le would be on site daily for the duration of construction activities. Construction access to the proposed Project site would be provided from Zoo Drive on the City of Los Angeles side of the proposed Project and from Flower Street on the Glendale side of the Project, with intermittent temporary lane closures and or reduced access. Due to the lack of suitable access ramps within close proximity to the proposed Project site, the cons truction contractor may construct a temporary ramp from Zoo Drive down the sloped levee into the channel bottom. The temporary construction staging area would be located in the City of Los Angeles and the City of Glendale at the southern and northern areas of the proposed Project; specifically, one of the staging areas would be on the north side of Zoo Drive within the shoulder of the road. Additional staging would occur within the Los Angeles River's northern bank and southern bank during construction of the bridge’s piers. Any rights of entry and/or temporary easements would be negotiated as part of the final design phase prior to the start of construction. The existing pedestrian and bike path use on the Riverwalk and the Los Angeles River Bike Path would require temporary intermittent detours during construction activities. The City of Glendale would be responsible for the construction of the proposed Project. The cities of Glendale and Los Angeles are currently negotiating an agreement to address shared ownership, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Project.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Results of the assessment indicate that the Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to air quality, greenhouse gas and energy and no mitigation is required.
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT SITE
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
PROJECT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
REGULATORY BACKGROUND
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for O 3, CO, NO X, SO2, PM10, and lead (Pb) (1). The EPA has jurisdiction over emissions sources that are under the authority of the federal government including aircraft, locomotives, and emissions sources outside state waters (Outer Continental Shelf). The EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission requirements of CARB.
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955 and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the federal air quality standards, the NAAQS, and specifies future dates for achieving compliance (2). The CAA also mandates that each state submit and implement state implementation plans (SIPs) for local areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met.
The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet in terim milestones. The sections of the CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project site include Title I (Non-Attainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions) (3) (4). Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants O 3, NO2, SO2,
PM10, CO, PM2.5, and Pb. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an additional standard for O3 and to adopt a NAAQS for PM2.5.
Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with Title II provisions. These provisions require the use of cleaner burning gasoline and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol and natural gas. Automobile manufacturers are also required to reduce tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and NO
X. NOX is a collective term that includes all forms of NOX which are emitted as byproducts of the combustion process.
CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS
CARB
The CARB, which became part of the California EPA (CalEPA) in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (AB 2595), responding to the federal CAA, and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. AB 2595 mandates achievement of the maximum degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to attain the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practical date. The CARB established the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for all pollutants for which the federal government has NAAQS and, in addition, establishes standards for SO 4,
visibility, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride (C2H3Cl). However, at this time, H2S and C2H3Cl EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
are not measured at any monitoring stations in the SCAB because they are not considered to be a regional air quality problem. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS (5) (6).
Local air quality management districts, such as the SCAQMD, regulate air emissions from stationary sources such as commercial and industrial facilities. All air pollution control districts have been formally designated as attainment or non-attainment for each CAAQS.
Serious non-attainment areas are required to prepare Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP) that include specified emission reduction strategies in an effort to meet clean air goals. These plans are required to include:
• Application of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology to existing sources; • Developing control programs for area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and solvents) and indirect sources (e.g., motor vehicle use generated by residential and commercial development);
• A District permitting system designed to allow no net increase in emissions from any new or modified permitted sources of emissions;
• Implementing reasonably available transportation control measures and assuring a substantial reduction in growth rate of vehicle trips and miles traveled; • Significant use of low emissions vehicles by fleet operators; • Sufficient control strategies to achieve a 5% or more annual reduction in emissions or 15% or more in a period of three years for ROGs, NO
X, CO and PM10. However, air basins
may use an alternative emission reduction strategy that achieves a reduction of less than 5% per year under certain circumstances.
AQMP
Currently, the NAAQS and CAAQS are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMP to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards (7). AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy.
APPLICABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this Project include but are not limited to Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) (8) (9).
SCAQMD Rule 403
This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (human- made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent and reduce fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or human -made condition capable of generating fugitive dust and requires best available control measures to be applied to earth moving and grading activities. This rule is intended to reduce PM 10 emissions from any
transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM
10 suppression techniques are summarized below.
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
• Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. • All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
• All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
• Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
METHODOLOGY
In May 2022, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with other California air districts, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), released the latest version of the CalEEMod Version 2022.1. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction-source and operational-source criteria pollutant (VOCs, NO
X, SOX, CO,
PM10, and PM2.5) and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures (11). Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this Project to determine construction and operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.
Standards of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential Project-related air quality impacts are taken from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines ( CEQA Guidelines ) (14 CCR §§15000, et seq.). Based on these thresholds, a project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would (10):
• Threshold 1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Threshold 2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
• Threshold 3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Threshold 4 : Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT THRESHOLDS GUIDE The L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006) describes significance thresholds to be used in air quality analyses and outlines methodologies for determining significance. It refers to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Analysis Handbook (1993) for appropriate thresholds . Although SCAQMD has not published an updated Handbook, various supplements have been published that provide updated methodologies for analyzing air quality impacts as well as thresholds of significance.
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
These current SCAQMD methodologies and significance thresholds were utilized in this analysis as presented below.
AIR QUALITY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD has developed regional significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, as summarized at Table 1 (12). The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds ( March 2023) indicate that any projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.
TABLE 1: MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Construction Operations
NOX 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOX 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
lbs/day – Pounds Per Day
AIR QUALITY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
For this Project, the appropriate Source Receptor Area ( SRA) for the Localized Significant Thresholds (LST) analysis is the SCAQMD East San Fernando Valley monitoring station (SRA 7).
LSTs apply to CO, NO 2, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look -up tables for pr ojects less than or equal to 5 acres in size . T he SCAQMD’s screening look- up tables are utilized in determining localized impacts. The proposed project is located on approximately 2.94 acres and it should be noted that since the look-up tables identify thresholds at only 1 acre, 2 acres, and 5 acres, linear regression has been utilized to determine localized significance thresholds.
Consistent with SCAQMD guidance, the thresholds presented in Table 2 were calculated by interpolating the threshold values for the Project’s disturbed acreage.
TABLE 2: MAXIMUM DAILY LOCALIZED EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction 132 lbs/day 989 lbs/day 122 lbs/day 57 lbs/day 1Source of localized significance threshold (LSTs) is provided on page 9.
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Construction activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of VOCs, NO X, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:
• Phase 1: North Abutment & Approaches
• Phase 2: Bridge Substructure (Bent Construction)
• Phase 3: South Abutment & Approaches
• Phase 4: Bridge Superstructure
• Phase 5: Architectural Elements / Landscaping
ON-ROAD TRIPS
Construction generates on-road vehicle emissions from vehicle usage for workers and vendors commuting to and from the site. It should be noted that the CalEEMod defaults for worker trips have been adjusted based on information provided by the Project applicant. Vendor trips are based on CalEEMod defaults.
CONSTRUCTION DURATION
Per Project applicant provided data, construction of Project is expected to commence in January 2026 and would last through March 2028. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a “worst -case” analysis scenario should construction occur any time after the respective dates since emission factors for construction decrease as time passes and the analysis year increases due to emission regulations becoming more stringent 1. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA Guidelines (13).
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
The CalEEMod default construction equipment associated with the proposed Project has been adjusted based on information provided by the Project applicant . Consistent with industry standards and typical construction practices, each piece of equipment will operate up to a total of eight (8) hours per day, or more than two -thirds of the period during which construction activities are allowed pursuant to the code.
REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY
The estimated maximum daily construction emissions without mitigation are summarized on Table 3. Detailed construction model outputs are presented in Attachment A. Under the assumed
1 As shown in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2022, Appendix G “Table G-11. Statewide Average Annual Offroad Equipment Emission Factors” as the analysis year increases, emission factors for the same equipment pieces decrease due to the natural turnover of older equipment being replaced by newer less polluting equipment and new regulatory requirements.
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
scenarios, emissions resulting from the Project construction will not exceed thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant and no mitigation is required.
TABLE 3: OVERALL REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2026 2.86 20.50 27.80 0.07 1.50 0.84
2027 2.72 16.50 21.60 0.07 1.40 0.75
Winter
2026 1.39 9.55 13.50 0.03 0.78 0.37
2027 1.37 9.21 13.50 0.03 0.62 0.39
2028 1.21 8.33 10.00 0.03 0.59 0.36
Maximum Daily Emissions 2.86 20.50 27.80 0.07 1.50 0.84 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
1PM10 and PM2.5 source emissions reflect 3x daily watering per SCAQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust.
REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational activities associated with Projects would result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NO X, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. As this Project involves the construction of 350-foot long, three-span curvilinear bridge structure and associated improvements , heating and consumer products would not be used. Additionally, any other sources including mobile and energy sources would not contribute a substantial amount of emissions capable of exceeding SCAQMD thresholds.
Sensitive Receptor Locations
Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution and are given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. These groups of people include children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness. Structures that house these persons or places where they gather are defined as “sensitive receptors”. These structures typically include uses such as residences, hotels, and hospitals where an individual can remain for 24 hours. Consistent with the LST Methodology, the nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM
10 and PM2.5, since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds
are based on a 24-hour averaging time.
Receptors in the Project study area are described below. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site. Receptors in the Project study area are shown on Exhibit 2 under the Localized Construction Emissions section later in the report.
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
• Receptor R1 represents the John Ferraro Athletic Fields south along Zoo Drive, approximately 318 feet west of the Project site at the play structure nearest to the Project site.
• Receptor R2 represents the existing residence located at 810 Pelanconi Avenue , approximately 1,238 feet northeast of the Project site. • Receptor R3 represents an outdoor seating area of an office structure located at 1000 Flower Street, approximately 422 feet northwest of the Project site. • Receptor R4 represents the John Ferraro Athletic Field soccer field, approximately 13 feet south of the Project site.
• Receptor R5 represents the John Ferraro Athletic Field soccer field, approximately 101 feet southwest of the Project site.
• Receptor R6 represents the Los Angeles Zoo south along Zoo Drive, approximately 1,454 feet south of the Project site.
• Receptor R7 represents the Los Angeles Children Zoo south along Zoo Drive , approximately 2,215 feet southwest of the Project site.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The analysis uses the methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology) (14). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The SCAQMD established LSTs in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I-4
2. LSTs represent the maximum
emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses. It should be noted that SCAQMD also states that projects that are statutorily or categorically exempt under CEQA would not be subject to LST analyses. Projects exempt from CEQA also include infill projects that meet the H&S Code provisions. The proposed Project is anticipated to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA and as such while LST analysis is not required for this Project, LST analysis is presented to further underscore that there are in fact no significant impacts associated with the Project.
The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the Project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact. The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine
2 The purpose of SCAQMD’s Environmental Justice program is to ensure that everyone has the right to equal protection from air pollution and fair access to the decision-making process that works to improve the quality of air within their communities. Further, the SCAQMD defines Environmental Justice as “…equitable environmental policymaking and enforcement to protect the health of all residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, from the health effects of air pollution.” EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
localized construction impacts for emissions of PM 10 and PM2.5 (since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24 -hour averaging time). The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 is location R2 represented by the existing residence at 810 Pelanconi Ave, approximately 1,238 feet (377 meters) northeast of the Project site. As such, for evaluation of localized PM10 and PM2.5, a 377-meter distance will be used. Receptors in the Project study area shown on Exhibit 2.
As previously stated, and consistent with LST Methodology, the nearest industrial/commercial use to the Project site is used to determine construction air impacts for emissions of NOX and CO as the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or less) and it is reasonable to assume that an individual could be present at these sites for periods of one to 8 hours. The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of NO X and CO is location R 4
represented by the John Ferraro Athletic Fields , approximately 13 feet (4 meters) south of the Project site.
It should be noted that the LST Methodology explicitly states that “It is possible that a project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters (14).” As such, for evaluation of localized NO
x and CO, a 25-meter distance will be used.
Additionally, receptors at locations R6 and R7, which represent potential impacts to patrons of the Los Angeles Zoo have been considered in this analysis. Given that both locations R 6 and R7 are located further away from the Project’s construction activities than locations R1 , R2, R3, R4, and R5 any potential impacts at locations R6 or R7 would be less than what is already disclosed in this report for impacts that may occur at locations R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5.
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
EXHIBIT 2: SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Table 4 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. Outputs from the model runs for construction LSTs are provided in Attachment A. For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak site preparation and grading activities are considered for purposes of LSTs since these phases represents the maximum localized emissions that would occur. Any other construction phases of development that overlap would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impact s than what is disclosed herein. As shown in Table 4, emissions resulting from the construction will not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant . Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for localized Project-related construction-source emissions and no mitigation is required.
TABLE 4: PROJECT LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
On-Site Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Phase 1: North Abutment & Approaches
Maximum Daily Emissions 7.94 10.40 0.26 0.24
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 132 989 122 57
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Phase 2: Bridge Substructure (Bent Construction)
Maximum Daily Emissions 20.20 23.90 0.71 0.65
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 132 989 122 57
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Phase 3: South Abutment & Approaches
Maximum Daily Emissions 9.46 12.40 0.33 0.31
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 132 989 122 57
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
As this Project involves the construction of 350-foot long, three-span curvilinear bridge structure and associated improvements, heating and consumer products would not be used. Additionally, any other sources including mobile and energy sources would not result in any substantive new long-term GHG emissions sources. The estimated GHG emissions for the Project land use are summarized on Table 5 . The estimated GHG emission include emissions from Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH 4), Nitrous Oxide (N 2O), and Refrigerants (R). As shown on Table 5 , the proposed Project would generate a total of approximately 46.97 MTCO2e/yr.
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
TABLE 5: TOTAL PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS
Year
Emission (MT/yr)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2e
Annual construction-related emissions
amortized over 30 years 46.77 2.00E-03 6.67E-04 6.33E-03 46.97 Total CO2e (All Sources) 46.97
A numerical threshold for determining the significance of GHG emissions in the SCAB has not been e stablished by the SCAQMD for projects where it is not the lead agency. As an interim threshold based on guidance provided in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook, the City has opted to use a non- zero threshold approach based on Approach 2 of the h andbook.
Threshold 2.5 (Unit-Based Thresh olds Based on Market Ca pture) e stablishes a numerical threshold based on capture of approximately 90% of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for all projects (15).
The Project would result in approximately 46.97 MTCO2e/yr; the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions.
PROJECT ENERGY ANALYSIS
Vehicle fuel efficiencies for light-duty-auto vehicles (LDA), light-duty-trucks (LDT1), and light-duty- trucks (LDT2) were estimated using information generated within the 2021 version of the EMFAC developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). EMF AC2021 is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates, fuel consumption, and VMT from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used by CARB to project changes in future emissions from on-road mobile sources (9). EMFAC2021 was run for the LDA, LDT1, and LDT2 vehicle class within the California Los Angeles South-Coast sub-area for the 202 6 calendar year. It should be noted that using the static year 202 6 is considered conservative for estimating fuel consumption as it does not account for fuel efficiency improvements each year. Data from EMFAC2021 is shown in Attachment B.
CONSTRUCTION ENERGY DEMANDS
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ELECTRICITY USAGE ESTIMATES
The 2024 National Construction Estimator identifies a typical power cost per 1,000 sf of construction per month of $2. 66, which was used to calculate the Project’s total construction power cost (16).
Based on Table 6, the total power cost of the on-site electricity usage during the construction of the Project is estimated to be approximately $8,857.09. As shown on Table 7, the total electricity usage from on-site Project construction related activities is estimated to be approximately 63,265 kWh.
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
TABLE 6: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION POWER COST
Land Use
Power Cost
(per 1,000 SF of
building per
month of
construction)
Total
Building
Size
(1,000 SF)
Construction
Duration
(months)
Project
Construction
Power Cost
Bridge/Overpass Construction $2.66 128.067 26 $8,857.09 TOTAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION POWER COST $8,857.09
TABLE 7: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICITY USAGE
Land Use Cost per kWh1 Project Construction
Electricity Usage (kWh)
Bridge/Overpass Construction $0.16 63,265
TOTAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ELECTRICITY USAGE (kWh) 63,265 1Assumes the Project will be under the GS-1 General Service Rate under Southern California Edison
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT FUEL ESTIMATES
As presented in Table 8 , Project construction activities would consume an estimated 130,082 gallons of diesel fuel. Project construction would represent a “single ‐event” diesel fuel demand and would not require on ‐going or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose.
CONSTRUCTION WORKER FUEL ESTIMATES
With respect to estimated VMT, the construction worker trips would generate an estimated 404,040 VMT. Based on CalEEMod methodology, it is assumed that 50% of all vendor trips are from LDA, 25% are from LDT1, and 25% are from LDT2. Data regarding Project related construction worker trips were based on CalEEMod defaults for the land use type and projec t location which are also utilized within the air quality assessment and CalEEMod outputs contained herein.
.
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
TABLE 8: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT FUEL CONSUMPTIONS ESTIMATES Activity/Duration Duration
(Days) Equipment HP Rating Quantity Usage Hours Load Factor HP-hrs/day Total Fuel
Consumption
(gal. diesel
fuel)
Phase 1 97
Bore/Drill Rigs 83 1 8 0.5 332 1,741
Excavators 36 2 8 0.38 219 1,148
Off-Highway Trucks 376 2 8 0.38 2,286 11,986
Phase 2 85
Bore/Drill Rigs 83 2 8 0.5 664 3,051
Excavators 36 4 8 0.38 438 2,011
Cranes 367 2 8 0.29 1,703 7,824
Off-Highway Trucks 376 3 8 0.38 3,429 15,755
Phase 3 155
Bore/Drill Rigs 83 1 8 0.5 332 2,782
Excavators 36 2 8 0.38 219 1,834
Off-Highway Trucks 376 2 8 0.38 2,286 19,154
Pavers 81 1 8 0.42 272 2,280
Phase 4 119
Cranes 367 2 8 0.29 1,703 10,954
Off-Highway Trucks 376 4 8 0.38 4,572 29,410
Phase 5 131
Cranes 367 2 8 0.29 1,703 12,058
Off-Highway Trucks 376 1 8 0.38 1,143 8,094
CONSTRUCTION FUEL DEMAND (GALLONS DIESEL FUEL) 130,082
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
As shown on Table 9, it is estimated that 14,313 gallons of fuel will be consumed related to construction worker trips during full construction of the proposed Project. Project construction worker trips would represent a “single ‐event” gasoline fuel demand and would not require on ‐ going or permanent commitment of fuel resources for this purpose.
TABLE 9: CONSTRUCTION WORKER FUEL CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES Year Construction Activity Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
VMT
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
Estimated
Fuel
Consumption
2026
LDA
Phase 1 97 20 18.5 35,890 33.12 1,084
Phase 2 85 30 18.5 47,175 33.12 1,425
Phase 3 79 10 18.5 14,615 33.12 441
LDT1
Phase 1 97 10 18.5 17,945 24.62 729
Phase 2 85 15 18.5 23,588 24.62 958
Phase 3 79 5 18.5 7,308 24.62 297
LDT2
Phase 1 97 10 18.5 17,945 24.57 730
Phase 2 85 15 18.5 23,588 24.57 960
Phase 3 79 5 18.5 7,308 24.57 297
2026
LDA
Phase 3 76 10 18.5 14,060 33.12 425
Phase 4 119 30 18.5 66,045 33.12 1,994
Phase 5 66 10 18.5 12,210 33.12 369
LDT1
Phase 3 76 5 18.5 7,030 24.62 286
Phase 4 119 15 18.5 33,023 24.62 1,341
Phase 5 66 5 18.5 6,105 24.62 248
LDT2
Phase 3 76 5 18.5 7,030 24.57 286
Phase 4 119 15 18.5 33,023 24.57 1,344
Phase 5 66 5 18.5 6,105 24.57 248
2026
LDA
Phase 5 65 10 18.5 12,025 33.12 363
LDT1
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
Year Construction Activity Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
VMT
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
Estimated
Fuel
Consumption
Phase 5 65 5 18.5 6,013 24.62 244
LDT2
Phase 5 65 5 18.5 6,013 24.57 245
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION WORKER FUEL CONSUMPTION 14,313
CONSTRUCTION VENDOR/HAULING FUEL ESTIMATES
With respect to estimated VMT, the construction vendor trips would generate an estimated 1,734 VMT. It is assumed that 50% of all vendor trips are from medium- heavy duty trucks (MHDT) and 50% of vendor trips are from heavy- heavy duty trucks (HHDT ). As shown on Table 10, it is estimated that 244 gallons of fuel will be consumed related to construction vendor trips (medium duty trucks) during full construction of the Project. Project construction vendor trips would represent a “single‐ event” diesel fuel dema nd and would not require on‐ going or permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose.
TABLE 10: CONSTRUCTION VENDOR FUEL CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES (TRUCKS) Year Construction Activity Duration
(Days)
Worker
Trips/Day
Trip
Length
(miles)
VMT
Average
Vehicle Fuel
Economy
Estimated
Fuel
Consumption
2026
MHDT
Phase 2 85 1 10.2 867 8.49 102
HHDT (Vendor)
Phase 2 85 1 10.2 867 6.12 142
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION WORKER FUEL CONSUMPTION 244
CONSTRUCTION ENERGY DEMANDS SUMMARY
Construction equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or energy-intensive, and Project construction equipment would confor m to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies.
CCR Title 13, Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) inform construction equipment operators of this requirement.
With regard to construction worker trips, the 2023 IEPR released by the CEC has shown that fuel efficiencies are getting better within on and off -road vehicle engines due to more stringent government requirements. As supported by the preceding discussions, Project construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
EXHIBIT 4
Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.
May 19, 2025
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
OPERATIONAL ENERGY DEMANDS SUMMARY
The Project does not propose a trip-generating land use. For these reasons, operational-related energy consumption would not result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Therefore, the operational impact related to vehicle fuel consumption would be less than significant.
AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GAS & ENERGY CONCLUSION
Results of the assessment indicate that the Project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact during construction and operations activities with air quality, greenhouse gas and energy and no mitigation is required.
EXHIBIT 4
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
REFERENCES
1. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Online] 1990. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/air-topics.
2. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Pollution and the Clean Air Act. [Online] http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/.
3. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary: Title I. [Online] https://www.epa.gov/clean- air-act-overview/1990-clean-air-act-amendment-summary-title-i.
4. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary: Title II. [Online] https://www.epa.gov/clean -air-act-overview/1990- clean-air-act-amendment-summary-title-ii.
5. Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). [Online] 2009. [Cited: April 16, 2018.] http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm.
6. Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). [Online] 1990. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/air-topics.
7. Southern California Association of Governments. 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. [Online] April 2016. http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf.
8. South Coast Air Quality Management District. RULE 403. FUGITIVE DUST. [Online] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule- 403.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
9. —. RULE 1113. Architectural Coatings. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default - source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf.
10. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). [Online] May 2022. www.caleemod.com.
11. State of California. 2020 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2020.
12. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. [Online] https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default - source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance- thresholds.pdf.
13. State of California. 2020 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act. 2020.
14. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology. s.l. : South Coast Air Quality Managment District, 2003.
15. —. Interim CEQA GHG Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. [Online] December 5, 2008. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance- thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf.
16. Pray, Richard. 2024 National Construction Estimator. Carlsbad : Craftsman Book Company, 2024.
EXHIBIT 4
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
17. California Department of Transportation. EMFAC Software. [Online] http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/air/pages/emfac.htm.
EXHIBIT 4
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
ATTACHMENT A
CALEEMOD CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
1 / 35
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report
Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2026) - Unmitigated
3.3. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2026) - Unmitigated
3.5. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2026) - Unmitigated
3.7. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated
3.9. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated
3.11. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
2 / 35
3.13. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2028) - Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
5.4. Vehicles
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
5.5. Architectural Coatings
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
3 / 35
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
5.7. Construction Paving
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
4 / 35
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
5 / 35
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 14238-Garden River Bridge
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 20.2
Location 34.155999, -118.28119
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Los Angeles
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 3974
EDFZ 17
Electric Utility Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Gas Utility Southern California Gas
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area
(sq ft)
Population Description
Bridge/Overpass
Constr
uction
0.06 Mile 2.94 0.00 — — — —
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
6 / 35
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.39 2.86 20.5 27.8 0.07 0.71 0.79 1.50 0.65 0.19 0.84 — 8,160 8,160 0.33 0.09 2.83 8,199 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.64 1.39 9.55 13.5 0.03 0.36 0.52 0.78 0.33 0.12 0.39 — 3,907 3,907 0.16 0.05 0.05 3,923 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.66 1.40 8.98 12.6 0.03 0.33 0.37 0.68 0.30 0.09 0.39 — 4,087 4,087 0.16 0.04 0.58 4,104 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.30 0.25 1.64 2.31 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.12 0.06 0.02 0.07 — 677 677 0.03 0.01 0.10 679
2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
7 / 35
2026 3.39 2.86 20.5 27.8 0.07 0.71 0.79 1.50 0.65 0.19 0.84 — 8,160 8,160 0.33 0.09 2.83 8,199 2027 3.23 2.72 16.5 21.6 0.07 0.61 0.78 1.40 0.56 0.18 0.75 — 8,110 8,110 0.33 0.09 2.48 8,147 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.64 1.39 9.55 13.5 0.03 0.33 0.52 0.78 0.31 0.12 0.37 — 3,907 3,907 0.16 0.05 0.05 3,923 2027 1.63 1.37 9.21 13.5 0.03 0.36 0.26 0.62 0.33 0.06 0.39 — 3,901 3,901 0.15 0.04 0.02 3,916 2028 1.44 1.21 8.33 10.0 0.03 0.33 0.26 0.59 0.30 0.06 0.36 — 3,563 3,563 0.14 0.04 0.02 3,577 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 1.55 1.31 8.98 12.6 0.03 0.30 0.37 0.68 0.28 0.09 0.37 — 3,752 3,752 0.15 0.04 0.58 3,769 2027 1.66 1.40 8.94 11.5 0.03 0.33 0.35 0.68 0.30 0.08 0.39 — 4,087 4,087 0.16 0.04 0.49 4,104 2028 0.26 0.22 1.48 1.79 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.06 — 635 635 0.02 0.01 0.06 638 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.28 0.24 1.64 2.31 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.07 — 621 621 0.03 0.01 0.10 624 2027 0.30 0.25 1.63 2.11 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.02 0.07 — 677 677 0.03 0.01 0.08 679 2028 0.05 0.04 0.27 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 106
3. Construction Emissions Details
3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.39 1.17 7.94 10.4 0.03 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 3,335 3,335 0.14 0.03 — 3,346 EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
8 / 35
Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.39 1.17 7.94 10.4 0.03 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 3,335 3,335 0.14 0.03 — 3,346 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.37 0.31 2.11 2.75 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 886 886 0.04 0.01 — 889 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.07 0.06 0.39 0.50 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 147 147 0.01 < 0.005 — 147 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
9 / 35
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.15 0.16 2.58 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 542 542 0.02 0.02 1.83 550 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.17 0.15 0.17 2.20 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 514 514 0.02 0.02 0.05 520 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 139 139 0.01 0.01 0.21 140 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 22.9 22.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 23.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.3. Linear, Grading & Excavation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
10 / 35
Off-Road
Equipment
3.14 2.64 20.2 23.9 0.07 0.71 — 0.71 0.65 — 0.65 — 7,316 7,316 0.30 0.06 — 7,341 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.73 0.61 4.71 5.56 0.02 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 — 1,704 1,704 0.07 0.01 — 1,710 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.13 0.11 0.86 1.02 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 282 282 0.01 < 0.005 — 283 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.25 0.22 0.23 3.88 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 813 813 0.03 0.03 2.75 825 EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
11 / 35
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.2 31.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 32.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 182 182 0.01 0.01 0.28 185 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.26 7.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.59 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 30.2 30.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 30.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.20 1.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.26 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2026) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.56 1.31 9.46 12.4 0.03 0.33 — 0.33 0.31 — 0.31 — 3,650 3,650 0.15 0.03 — 3,663 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
12 / 35
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment
1.56 1.31 9.46 12.4 0.03 0.33 — 0.33 0.31 — 0.31 — 3,650 3,650 0.15 0.03 — 3,663 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.33 0.28 2.02 2.65 0.01 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 779 779 0.03 0.01 — 781 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.05 0.37 0.48 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 129 129 0.01 < 0.005 — 129 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.08 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 271 271 0.01 0.01 0.92 275 EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
13 / 35
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.09 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 257 257 0.01 0.01 0.02 260 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 55.6 55.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 56.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 9.21 9.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.33 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.7. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.55 1.30 9.12 12.4 0.03 0.31 — 0.31 0.29 — 0.29 — 3,649 3,649 0.15 0.03 — 3,661 EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
14 / 35
———————0.000.00—0.000.00——————Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.55 1.30 9.12 12.4 0.03 0.31 — 0.31 0.29 — 0.29 — 3,649 3,649 0.15 0.03 — 3,661 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.32 0.27 1.89 2.58 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 757 757 0.03 0.01 — 759 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.06 0.05 0.35 0.47 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 125 125 0.01 < 0.005 — 126 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
15 / 35
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.07 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 266 266 0.01 0.01 0.83 270 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.09 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 252 252 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 255 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 53.0 53.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 53.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 8.78 8.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.89 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.9. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
16 / 35
Off-Road
Equipment
2.99 2.51 16.3 18.0 0.07 0.61 — 0.61 0.56 — 0.56 — 7,313 7,313 0.30 0.06 — 7,338 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.97 0.82 5.31 5.87 0.02 0.20 — 0.20 0.18 — 0.18 — 2,384 2,384 0.10 0.02 — 2,392 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.18 0.15 0.97 1.07 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 395 395 0.02 < 0.005 — 396 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.24 0.21 0.21 3.60 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 797 797 0.03 0.03 2.48 809 EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
17 / 35
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.08 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 250 250 < 0.005 0.01 0.35 253 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 41.4 41.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 41.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.11. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2027) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.40 1.18 8.99 9.08 0.03 0.36 — 0.36 0.33 — 0.33 — 3,313 3,313 0.13 0.03 — 3,325 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
18 / 35
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.25 0.21 1.62 1.64 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 597 597 0.02 < 0.005 — 599 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.05 0.04 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 98.8 98.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 99.1 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.09 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 252 252 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 255 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 46.0 46.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 46.6 EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
19 / 35
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 7.62 7.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.72 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.13. Linear, Drainage, Utilities, & Sub-Grade (2028) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
1.36 1.14 8.25 9.06 0.03 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 3,315 3,315 0.13 0.03 — 3,326 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.24 0.20 1.47 1.61 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 590 590 0.02 < 0.005 — 592 EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
20 / 35
———————0.000.00—0.000.00——————Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
0.04 0.04 0.27 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 97.7 97.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 98.1 Dust
F
rom
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
tr
uck
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 247 247 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 250 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 44.7 44.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 45.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 7.40 7.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.50 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
21 / 35
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
22 / 35
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
23 / 35
——————————————————Remove
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Phase 1: North Abutment &
Approaches
Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clear
ing
1/1/2026 5/15/2026 5.00 97.0 —
Phase 2: Bridge
Substr
ucture (Bent
Construction)
Linear, Grading &
Exca
vation
5/18/2026 9/11/2026 5.00 85.0 —
Phase 3: South Abutment &
Approaches
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Gr
ade
9/14/2026 4/16/2027 5.00 155 —
Phase 4: Bridge
Superstr
ucture
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Gr
ade
4/17/2027 9/30/2027 5.00 119 —
Phase 5: Architectural
Elements /
Landscaping
Linear, Drainage, Utilities, &
Sub-Gr
ade
10/1/2027 3/31/2028 5.00 131 —
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
24 / 35
5.2. Off-Road Equipment
5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Phase 1: North
Ab
utment &
Approaches
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Phase 1: North
Ab
utment &
Approaches
Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Phase 1: North
Ab
utment &
Approaches
Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 376 0.38
Phase 2: Bridge
Substr
ucture (Bent
Construction)
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Phase 2: Bridge
Substr
ucture (Bent
Construction)
Excavators Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Phase 2: Bridge
Substr
ucture (Bent
Construction)
Cranes Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.29
Phase 2: Bridge
Substr
ucture (Bent
Construction)
Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 376 0.38
Phase 3: South
Ab
utment &
Approaches
Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Phase 3: South
Ab
utment &
Approaches
Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Phase 3: South
Ab
utment &
Approaches
Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 376 0.38
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
25 / 35
0.4281.08.001.00AverageDieselPaversPhase 3: South
Abutment &
Approaches
Phase 4: Bridge
Superstr
ucture
Cranes Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.29
Phase 4: Bridge
Superstr
ucture
Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 376 0.38
Phase 5: Architectural
Elements /
Landscaping
Cranes Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.29
Phase 5: Architectural
Elements /
Landscaping
Off-Highway Trucks Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 376 0.38
5.3. Construction Vehicles
5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Phase 1: North Abutment &
Approaches
— — — —
Phase 1: North Abutment &
Approaches
Worker 40.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Phase 1: North Abutment &
Approaches
Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Phase 1: North Abutment &
Approaches
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Phase 1: North Abutment &
Approaches
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Phase 2: Bridge Substructure (Bent
Constr
uction)
— — — —
Phase 2: Bridge Substructure (Bent
Constr
uction)
Worker 60.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Phase 2: Bridge Substructure (Bent
Constr
uction)
Vendor 1.00 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
26 / 35
HHDT20.00.00HaulingPhase 2: Bridge Substructure (Bent
Construction)
Phase 2: Bridge Substructure (Bent
Constr
uction)
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Phase 3: South Abutment &
Approaches
— — — —
Phase 3: South Abutment &
Approaches
Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Phase 3: South Abutment &
Approaches
Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Phase 3: South Abutment &
Approaches
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Phase 3: South Abutment &
Approaches
Onsite truck — — HHDT
Phase 4: Bridge Superstructure — — — —
Phase 4: Bridge Superstructure Worker 60.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Phase 4: Bridge Superstructure Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Phase 4: Bridge Superstructure Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Phase 4: Bridge Superstructure Onsite truck — — HHDT
Phase 5: Architectural Elements /
Landscaping
— — — —
Phase 5: Architectural Elements /
Landscaping
Worker 20.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Phase 5: Architectural Elements /
Landscaping
Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Phase 5: Architectural Elements /
Landscaping
Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Phase 5: Architectural Elements /
Landscaping
Onsite truck — — HHDT
5.4. Vehicles
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
27 / 35
5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
5.6. Dust Mitigation
5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Phase 1: North Abutment &
Approaches
— — 2.94 0.00 —
Phase 2: Bridge Substructure
(Bent
Construction)
— — 2.94 0.00 —
Phase 3: South Abutment &
Approaches
— — 2.94 0.00 —
Phase 4: Bridge Superstructure — — 2.94 0.00 —
Phase 5: Architectural
Elements /
Landscaping
— — 2.94 0.00 —
5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.
5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Bridge/Overpass Construction 2.00 100%
5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
28 / 35
kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 690 0.05 0.01
2027 0.00 690 0.05 0.01
2028 0.00 690 0.05 0.01
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions
will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
29 / 35
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 11.7 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 6.75 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed histor
ical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full da
y or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments
of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.
Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, v
egetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest e
xposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the g
reatest ability to adapt.
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
30 / 35
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest e
xposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the g
reatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 69.6
AQ-PM 65.9
AQ-DPM 47.5
Drinking Water 92.5
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
31 / 35
Lead Risk Housing —
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 70.0
Traffic 99.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 94.3
Groundwater 36.9
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 47.6
Impaired Water Bodies 77.3
Solid Waste 89.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 8.92
Cardio-vascular 23.8
Low Birth Weights —
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education —
Housing —
Linguistic —
Poverty —
Unemployment —
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty —
Employed —
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
32 / 35
Median HI —
Education —
Bachelor's or higher —
High school enrollment —
Preschool enrollment —
Transportation —
Auto Access —
Active commuting —
Social —
2-parent households —
Voting —
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability —
Park access —
Retail density —
Supermarket access —
Tree canopy —
Housing —
Homeownership —
Housing habitability —
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden —
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden —
Uncrowded housing —
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults —
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 87.3
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
33 / 35
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.0
Cognitively Disabled 99.8
Physically Disabled 99.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 79.0
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 0.0
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 100.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 99.4
Elderly 99.8
English Speaking 0.0
Foreign-born 0.0
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
34 / 35
Outdoor Workers 98.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 97.9
Traffic Density 0.0
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 0.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 0.0
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) —
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) —
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Y es Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
EXHIBIT 4
14238-Garden River Bridge Detailed Report, 12/20/2022
35 / 35
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Taken from site plan
Construction: Off-Road Equipment Construction equipment provided by Project applicant Standard
8-hour working day
Off-Highway Trucks represent "Concrete Trucks"
Construction: Dust From Material Movement Emissions accounted only for grading Construction: Trips and VMT Client provided vendor trips per phase.
EXHIBIT 4
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
ATTACHMENT B
CALEEMOD OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 1 / 28
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 2 / 28
4.3.1. Unmitigated
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 3 / 28
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 4 / 28
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 5 / 28
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 6 / 28
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations)
Operational Y ear 2028
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 20.2
Location 34.155999, -118.28119
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Los Angeles
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 3974
EDFZ 17
Electric Utility Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.23
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area
(sq ft)
Population Description
User Defined
Recreational
1.00 User Defined Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — —
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 7 / 28
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.12 0.10 0.09 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 0.00 327 327 0.01 0.01 0.91 331 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 0.00 313 313 0.01 0.01 0.02 317 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.11 0.10 0.11 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 0.00 317 317 0.01 0.01 0.40 321 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.00 52.5 52.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 53.2
2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 8 / 28
Mobile 0.12 0.10 0.09 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 327 327 0.01 0.01 0.91 331 Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.12 0.10 0.09 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 0.00 327 327 0.01 0.01 0.91 331 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 313 313 0.01 0.01 0.02 317 Area — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 0.00 313 313 0.01 0.01 0.02 317 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.11 0.10 0.11 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 317 317 0.01 0.01 0.40 321 Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.11 0.10 0.11 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 0.00 317 317 0.01 0.01 0.40 321 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 52.5 52.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 53.2 Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 9 / 28
Total 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.00 52.5 52.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 53.2
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Recreational
0.12 0.10 0.09 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 327 327 0.01 0.01 0.91 331 Total 0.12 0.10 0.09 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 327 327 0.01 0.01 0.91 331 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Recreational
0.11 0.10 0.10 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 313 313 0.01 0.01 0.02 317 Total 0.11 0.10 0.10 1.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 313 313 0.01 0.01 0.02 317 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Recreational
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 52.5 52.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 53.2 Total 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 52.5 52.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 53.2
4.2. Energy
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 10 / 28
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Recreational
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Recreational
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Recreational
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 11 / 28
0.00—0.000.000.000.00—0.00—0.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.00User Defined
Recreational
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Recreational
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Recreational
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 12 / 28
0.00—0.000.000.000.00—0.00—0.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.00Landsca pe
Equipme
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ur
al
Coatings
— 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 13 / 28
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Recreational
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Recreational
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Recreational
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Recreational
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 14 / 28
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Recreational
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
User
Defined
Recreational
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 15 / 28
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
T
ype
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
T
ype
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 16 / 28
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
T
ype
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 17 / 28
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 18 / 28
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 19 / 28
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear User Defined
Recreational
29.0 29.0 29.0 10,585 435 435 435 158,775
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq
ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 20 / 28
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) User Defined Recreational 0.00 690 0.0489 0.0069 0.00
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) User Defined Recreational 0.00 0.00
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
User Defined Recreational 0.00 —
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor
5.16. Stationary Sources
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 21 / 28
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor
5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)
5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 22 / 28
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions
will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 11.7 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 6.75 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed histor
ical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full da
y or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider in
undation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.
Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, v
egetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 23 / 28
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest e
xposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the g
reatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest e
xposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the g
reatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 24 / 28
AQ-Ozone 69.6
AQ-PM 65.9
AQ-DPM 47.5
Drinking Water 92.5
Lead Risk Housing —
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 70.0
Traffic 99.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 94.3
Groundwater 36.9
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 47.6
Impaired Water Bodies 77.3
Solid Waste 89.9
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 8.92
Cardio-vascular 23.8
Low Birth Weights —
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education —
Housing —
Linguistic —
Poverty —
Unemployment —
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 25 / 28
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty —
Employed —
Median HI —
Education —
Bachelor's or higher —
High school enrollment —
Preschool enrollment —
Transportation —
Auto Access —
Active commuting —
Social —
2-parent households —
Voting —
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability —
Park access —
Retail density —
Supermarket access —
Tree canopy —
Housing —
Homeownership —
Housing habitability —
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden —
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden —
Uncrowded housing —
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 26 / 28
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults —
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 87.3
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.0
Cognitively Disabled 99.8
Physically Disabled 99.8
Heart Attack ER Admissions 79.0
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 0.0
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 100.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 27 / 28
Children 99.4
Elderly 99.8
English Speaking 0.0
Foreign-born 0.0
Outdoor Workers 98.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 97.9
Traffic Density 0.0
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 0.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 0.0
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) —
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) —
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Y es Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
EXHIBIT 4
14238 - Garden River Bridge (Operations) Detailed Report, 5/15/2024 28 / 28
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Operations: Vehicle Data Per client data, the Project will include 29 daily trips and a 15 mile trip length.
EXHIBIT 4
14238-06 AQ, GHG & EA Assessment
ATTACHMENT C
EMFAC2021
EXHIBIT 4
Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Sub-Area
Region: Los Angeles (SC)
Calendar Year: 2026
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, kWh/day for Energy Consumption, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption Region
endar Yehicle Catego Model Year Speed Fuel Population Total VMT el_Consumption (1000 g Fuel_Consumption (gal) Total Fuel VMT Total VMT Miles per Gallon Vehicle Class Los Angeles (SC) 2026 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 31.71483174 2530.344681 0.595008255 595.008255 1164069.716 2530.344681 7277084.666 6.25 HHDT Los Angeles (SC) 2026 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 55277.3799 6819808.694 1098.590287 1098590.287 6819808.694 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 610.8824182 66680.90118 0 0 66680.90118 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 6222.084708 388064.7258 64.88442099 64884.42099 388064.7258 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 3219652.786 125598332.2 4156.999113 4156999.113 4242481.146 125598332.2 140494683.9 33.12 LDA Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 7348.716503 212062.0866 5.149764542 5149.764542 212062.0866 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 209865.581 10019447.29 0 0 10019447.29 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 103430.6361 4664842.379 80.33226876 80332.26876 4664842.379 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 303121.7183 10988219.26 436.9194811 436919.4811 437683.1643 10988219.26 11090768.71 25.34 LDT1 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 88.7979738 1718.50539 0.074204054 74.20405391 1718.50539 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1265.851297 56656.04808 0 0 56656.04808 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 890.9485459 44174.8973 0.689479092 689.4790918 44174.8973 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1632990.627 66847121.76 2677.276355 2677276.355 2698876.906 66847121.76 68582011.91 25.41 LDT2 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 5437.834714 230831.6694 7.025538956 7025.538956 230831.6694 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 17319.28615 613691.4866 0 0 613691.4866 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 18786.14155 890366.9989 14.57501217 14575.01217 890366.9989 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 123929.2199 4960391.725 351.17062 351170.62 481998.3017 4960391.725 7842646.775 16.27 LHDT1 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 61552.22012 2704306.099 130.8276817 130827.6817 2704306.099 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2671.099104 177948.9511 0 0 126318.5559 177948.9511 1956182.403 15.49 LHDT2 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 18802.30269 702537.4457 57.21721911 57217.21911 702537.4457 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 28207.89186 1209848.539 69.10133677 69101.33677 24235.05076 1209848.539 1005181.469 41.48 MCY Los Angeles (SC) 2026 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 691.3171043 43796.419 0 0 1829186.939 43796.419 38233993.02 20.90 MDV Los Angeles (SC) 2026 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 153887.3138 1005181.469 24.23505076 24235.05076 1005181.469 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 964398.5458 36646219.44 1803.349906 1803349.906 36646219.44 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 11199.92317 428851.9709 17.49813003 17498.13003 428851.9709 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 18645.2319 659895.0843 0 0 36235.25834 659895.0843 206291.2031 5.69 MH Los Angeles (SC) 2026 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug-in Hybrid 11391.54804 499026.5259 8.338902977 8338.902977 499026.5259 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 14307.03368 146047.5722 30.18050526 30180.50526 432346.7032 146047.5722 3398646.229 7.86 MHDT Los Angeles (SC) 2026 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 5685.026918 60243.63088 6.054753085 6054.753085 60243.63088 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 14018.64483 760040.5963 144.2836857 144283.6857 760040.5963 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 61381.38023 2536950.689 282.4978542 282497.8542 2536950.689 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1016.757423 56341.7981 0 0 51620.84435 56341.7981 320927.8184 6.22 OBUS Los Angeles (SC) 2026 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 983.1551606 45313.1448 5.565163339 5565.163339 45313.1448 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 3466.029388 130669.0411 25.46693943 25466.93943 130669.0411 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2204.359751 167083.6645 23.79556615 23795.56615 20245.30514 167083.6645 133175.7822 6.58 SBUS Los Angeles (SC) 2026 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 32.17174938 2316.377191 0 0 2316.377191 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 358.9603738 20858.73557 2.358338765 2358.338765 20858.73557 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1439.394428 63136.50277 6.985775097 6985.775097 63136.50277 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1484.919634 29449.64017 4.00274451 4002.74451 138225.3819 29449.64017 455208.2004 3.29 UBUS Los Angeles (SC) 2026 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 43.7276656 1385.007139 0 0 1385.007139 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 1619.758995 39204.63215 9.256785533 9256.785533 39204.63215 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 435.2433216 30711.79502 6.645484972 6645.484972 30711.79502 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6.30137858 935.3704801 0.161043189 161.0431889 935.3704801 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 172.837956 17147.4887 0 0 17147.4887 Los Angeles (SC) 2026 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Gas 3794.807103 406413.5462 131.4188537 131418.8537 406413.5462 EXHIBIT 4